[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6830-6872]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




S. CON. RES. 41, H. CON. RES. 112, S. CON. RES. 37, S. CON. RES. 42, S. 
                CON. RES. 44 EN BLOC--MOTIONS TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following 
concurrent resolutions, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motions to proceed to Calendar No. 357, S. Con Res. 41; 
     Calendar No. 354, H. Con. Res. 112; Calendar No. 356, S. Con. 
     Res. 37; Calendar No. 384, S. Con. Res. 42; Calendar No. 395, 
     S. Con. Res. 44.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 6 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or 
their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and 
the Republicans controlling the second 30 minutes.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, this is a consequential discussion 
today. It is a question of the future economic policy of the United 
States. That is what we are talking about here today. I just heard the 
Republican leader say there is no budget. I don't know how to say this, 
but sometimes I wonder if colleagues pay attention to what they are 
voting on here. Last year in August we did not pass a budget 
resolution; instead, we passed a budget law.

[[Page 6831]]

  Anybody who has had 10th grade civics knows a law is stronger than 
any resolution. A resolution is purely a congressional document. It 
never goes to the President for his signature. A law has to pass both 
bodies and be signed by the President. Last year, instead of a budget 
resolution, we did a budget law called the Budget Control Act.
  The Budget Control Act set the budget for the next 2 years, for this 
year and next. More than that, it set 10 years of spending caps, saving 
$900 billion. In addition, the Budget Control Act gave a special 
committee the authority to reform the tax system and the entitlement 
system of the country, and it said: If you come to an agreement, 
special committee, your action cannot be filibustered. You have to go 
right to the floor for a vote. And if you do not agree, there will be 
an additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts put in place.
  The special committee did not agree, so that additional $1.2 trillion 
of spending cuts is now the law, in addition to the $900 billion of 
spending cuts. That is a total spending cut package of more than $2 
trillion. That is the biggest spending cut package in the history of 
the United States. For our colleagues to say there are no spending 
limits in place--really? What is the Budget Control Act, then? It is a 
law passed overwhelmingly in the Senate. It passed in the House. It was 
signed by the President of the United States.
  Why are they engaged in this diversion? I think I know why. Because 
the last time our colleagues on the other side were in control, when 
they had it all, the House, the Senate, the White House--from 2001 to 
2006 they had both Houses of Congress, until 2008 they had the White 
House, so of course nothing could be changed in terms of the policies 
they put in place until we had a new President. And what happened when 
they had total control and their policies were in place? Republican 
policies led the United States to the brink of financial collapse. That 
is what happened. Do you know what they want to do now? They want to go 
back to those failed policies and do it all over again.
  We cannot let them do that. That would be a disaster for this 
country. It would be a disaster for the world's economy. I do not know 
what could be more clear than when their policies were in place they 
brought this Nation to the brink of financial collapse. I remember 
those days. I remember being called to a special meeting in this 
building with the leaders of the House and the Senate and the head of 
the Treasury Department under President Bush and the Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve, who told us if they did not take certain actions the 
next day there would be a financial collapse in the United States 
within days. I was in the room when the rescue for the major financial 
institutions in this country was designed and we were told, late on a 
Saturday night, if we did not reach agreement by the next day the Asian 
markets would open Sunday night and they would collapse and our markets 
would open the next Monday and they would collapse.
  Barack Obama was not the President; George W. Bush was the President. 
The Republican economic policies had been put in place in 2001, in 
2002, in 2003, and those policies were still in place when we came 
close to collapse. We do not forget.
  Let's go back to what happened with the private sector jobs picture. 
At the end of the Bush administration we were losing 800,000 jobs a 
month. Now we are gaining 130,000 in the last month. In the months 
before that, immediately preceding, we were gaining about 200,000 jobs 
a month. We have had a gain, now that the economy has started to turn 
around under this President, of 4 million jobs created in the private 
sector.
  There it is. The red line is the results of the last time the 
Republicans controlled the policy here--job losses every month. 
Finally, under this President things have begun to turn around. Instead 
of losing jobs we are gaining jobs, and the same is true on economic 
growth. On economic growth the record is very clear. In the last 
quarter of the Bush administration the economy was shrinking at a rate 
of almost 9 percent. You can see it there, that long red bar--the 
economy in the last quarter of the Bush administration shrinking at a 
rate of almost 9 percent. But that, too, has turned around under this 
new President and we are now averaging economic growth of about 3 
percent--a dramatic improvement.
  But our Republican friends are not satisfied. They want to take us 
back. They want to take us back to those failed policies that had the 
economy shrinking at a rate of 9 percent, had us losing 800,000 jobs a 
month. We are not going to support that. We are going to oppose that. 
One thing the Republican leader got right is we are going to be voting 
against going back to those failed policies that put this economy in 
the ditch, that put us on the brink of financial collapse. He is 
absolutely right. We are going to oppose that.
  Our policies have begun to turn things in the right direction. Here 
are the positive signs for the U.S. economy: 26 consecutive months of 
private sector job growth; 11 consecutive quarters of real GDP growth; 
unemployment rate down; manufacturing has expanded for 33 consecutive 
months; consumer confidence is showing signs of improvement--in fact, 
the last consumer confidence reading is at a 4-year high; U.S. auto 
manufacturers that were on the brink of bankruptcy under the Bush 
administration policies, the Republican policies, are now returning to 
profitability; and State revenues are showing signs of improvement.
  One way we can reality-test is how is our economy doing compared to 
our major competitors. How are we doing compared to the Europeans? How 
are we doing compared to Japan? How are we doing compared to the United 
Kingdom? On every one of those tests the United States comes out on 
top. Our economy is performing better than the European zone--all the 
European countries combined. We are doing better than Japan. We are 
doing better than the United Kingdom. This chart shows the story. Our 
economic growth is the best, compared to our major competitors.
  If there is any doubt that Republican policies had us on the brink of 
financial collapse, we can look to the study that was done by Alan 
Blinder, the former Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Mark 
Zandi, who advised the McCain campaign on economic policy. The two of 
them did an analysis of the Federal actions taken to deal with the 
fiscal crisis and the financial crisis. Here is what they conclude:

       We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs and inflation 
     are huge, and probably averted what could have been called 
     Great Depression 2.0.

  When our friends attack the President and say he did not lead--
really? He averted a depression. He prevented a financial collapse, 
because that is exactly where we were headed when the Republicans were 
in control.
  Zandi and Blinder went on to write:

       When all is said and done, the financial and fiscal 
     policies will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum, but not 
     nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as 
     if policymakers had not acted at all. If the comprehensive 
     policy responses saved the economy from another depression, 
     as we estimate, they were well worth their cost.

  That is exactly right. But what do our colleagues on the other side 
want to do? They want to take us to extreme austerity. They want to 
slam on the brakes, even while this economy is in a fragile recovery. 
We do not have to wonder what would happen if we adopted the policies 
they are presenting here on the floor of the Senate today. We do not 
have to imagine it; we can just look across to Europe because they are 
pursuing the policies that our colleagues on the other side advocate 
here today. What is happening? We have kind of an experiment going on 
because what our Republican friends are pushing for is being done in 
Europe. What are they experiencing? Here is a column from the former 
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, ``Austerity Is Strangling 
Europe.''

       [T]he direction of European economic and financial policy 
     must change, away from pure austerity toward growth. Greece, 
     Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Spain have made substantial 
     progress in stabilizing their finances. But the economic and 
     political situation in these countries shows that austerity 
     alone is not the way to resolve the crisis.


[[Page 6832]]


  Do we have a problem with debt? Absolutely. Do we need to deal with 
it? Absolutely. I was part of the Bowles-Simpson commission. I was part 
of the group of six. I have spent hundreds of hours negotiating with 
colleagues on both sides to get a result. But the answer is not extreme 
austerity right now. Almost every economic analyst says if you do that 
you will slam this country right back into recession. Again, we do not 
have to look very far to find out if that is true, because Great 
Britain has tried that approach. What have they experienced? Here is an 
article from the Wall Street Journal on April 26: ``U.S. Slips Back 
Into Recession.''
  That is exactly the formula that is being presented by our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle today. Let's slam on the brakes. We are 
going to put this thing right back in recession. Hey, they had their 
chance. They ran the economic policy of this country for 8 years under 
the Bush administration, and sure enough they had this country on the 
brink of financial collapse. Now they want to return to those same 
failed policies. What a mistake that would be.
  We have heard the Republican leader say there is no budget; we have 
no budget. As I indicated in the beginning of my remarks, we do have a 
budget law that was passed last year. It is called the Budget Control 
Act. Let me read from the Budget Control Act because maybe my 
colleagues missed it when they were voting on it. Here is what it says 
in two places:

       The allocations, aggregates, and levels

  Referring to spending levels--

     set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply in the Senate in the 
     same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2012.

  Is that confusing? It says ``in the same manner as for a concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012.''
  The identical language is repeated for 2013:

       The allocations, aggregates, and levels set in subsection 
     (b)(2) shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013.

  That is about as clear as it can be. I might add, the Budget Control 
Act, as I indicated earlier, is stronger than any resolution because a 
resolution is purely a congressional document. It never goes to the 
President for his signature. So the Budget Control Act that set the 
budget for 2012 and 2013 has the force of law, unlike a budget 
resolution that is not signed by the President.
  The Budget Control Act also sets spending limits not just for 2 years 
but for 10 years. It caps spending for 10 years, saving $900 billion. 
It also provided the full enforcement mechanisms, including a deeming 
resolution that allowed budget points of order to be enforced for the 
appropriations bills that come in 2012 and 2013.
  The Budget Control Act did something else. It created a 
supercommittee, a reconciliation-like procedure to address entitlement 
reform and tax reform backed up by a $1.2 trillion so-called sequester. 
``Sequester'' is just a fancy word for more spending cuts.
  The Budget Control Act that is the law said if the special committee 
didn't reform the tax system, didn't reform the entitlement system, 
that there would be another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts imposed on 
top of the $900 billion. We all know the special committee didn't reach 
an agreement, so that additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts is in 
place. That is a total of $2 trillion in spending cuts. That is the 
biggest spending cut package in the history of the United States.
  For our friends on the other side to say there are no spending limits 
in place is just wrong. It is just wrong. We do have a problem. We have 
a big problem. This chart talks about the spending and revenue of the 
country over the last 60 years and tells us why we have a problem. The 
red line shows the spending in the United States over that period. The 
green line shows the revenues. We can see on the chart there is a big 
gap between the spending and the revenue, and that is why we have 
deficits.
  Our friends on the other side like to refer to one part of the 
equation. They just like to talk about spending. But the reality is 
deficits are created by the gap between the revenue and the spending. 
We can see on this chart we are at or near a 60-year high on spending. 
We have come off the 60-year high a little bit, and we are at or near a 
60-year low on revenue. We have to work both sides of the equation. 
Again, we are at or near a 60-year high on the spending, and we are at 
or near a 60-year low on revenue.
  So what is to be done about it? The public says we ought to have a 
balanced plan: 62 percent say the best way to reduce the Federal budget 
deficit is a combination of additional revenue and spending cuts. Eight 
percent say we ought to just increase taxes. Seventeen percent say just 
cut programs.
  I was part of the so-called Bowles-Simpson Commission. There were 18 
of us; 11 of the 18 supported the conclusions that called for that kind 
of approach--additional revenue but also additional spending cuts. That 
is what the American people say we ought to do, but that is not what 
our friends on the other side are proposing. They propose additional 
tax cuts, to dig the hole deeper before we start filling it in.
  Then they say: In addition to that, we will have Draconian spending 
cuts because if we are going to have more tax cuts that primarily go to 
the wealthiest among us, and we are trying to reduce the deficit, that 
means we have to have even more spending cuts.
  Let me just say that the budgets our Republican friends are going to 
be offering today have something in common. Every one of them ends 
Medicare as we know it. Every Republican budget offered today ends 
Medicare as we know it. One of the Republican budgets being offered 
today cuts Social Security by 39 percent. That is their answer. If we 
are going to have more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us--and many 
of them are not paying their fair share of taxes--and if we are going 
to give them additional tax cuts, trillions of dollars in some cases in 
these budgets they are presenting today, then how are we going to make 
it up? Their answer is end Medicare as we know it, and that is in every 
one of their budgets.
  One of them has gone so far as to say: Let's cut Social Security 
benefits 39 percent. We will be voting on that later today, and we will 
see who stands behind that proposal.
  Every Republican budget cuts taxes for millionaires by at least 
$150,000 a year. Are you listening? Every Republican budget being 
offered today cuts taxes for millionaires by at least $150,000 a year 
on average.
  Every Republican budget being offered today protects offshore tax 
havens.
  What are offshore tax havens? This is a picture of a building down in 
the Cayman Islands. It is an Ugland House. It is a little five-story 
building down in the Cayman Islands. That building claims to be the 
home of 18,857 companies, and they all say they are doing business out 
of that little building down in the Cayman Islands--18,857 companies.
  They are not doing business out of that building. They are doing 
monkey business out of that building, and the monkey business they are 
doing is avoiding the taxes they owe in the United States.
  Every Republican budget protects those offshore tax havens. The first 
House Republican budget plan we will be voting on today is totally 
unbalanced. There is no revenue. In fact, it is a lot more tax cuts, $1 
trillion of additional tax cuts for the wealthiest in our country. They 
do cut some things other than taxes; they cut health care by almost $3 
trillion. They shift Medicare to a voucher system which will end 
Medicare as we know it. They block-grant for Medicaid, going right 
after the most vulnerable in our society: children, the disabled, and 
those who have the least. They cut the safety net for seniors, 
children, the disabled, which will increase the number of uninsured by 
more than 30 million. They have large cuts to education, energy, and 
infrastructure. Cutting education doesn't make a whole lot of sense to 
me. Talk about eating your seed corn, that is it.
  After our House Republican colleagues put out their budget, the

[[Page 6833]]

Catholic bishops said this in the Washington Post: Bishops say Ryan 
budget fails moral test.
  The House Republican budget authored by Mr. Ryan fails the moral 
test. It certainly does.
  Let's go to the next slide. This plan cuts discretionary spending $1 
trillion beyond what the Budget Control Act did. If you look at 
priorities, it kind of leaps out at you. Health care is cut by almost 
$3 trillion. It goes from $12.7 trillion to $9.9 trillion.
  Then we go to the question of education, where the United States is 
already lagging. In fact, the United States ranks 25th out of 34 OECD 
countries in math. We are 25th in math. In science we are 17th out of 
34. So we are 25th out of 34 in math, and we are 17th out of 34 in 
science. The budget from the House Republicans says to cut education by 
25 percent; cut it from $77 billion to $58 billion. That is a 25-
percent cut in education under the House Republican plan.
  We have all seen gasoline prices rising. We are thankful they have 
been easing back in recent days. But, nonetheless, on May 14 gasoline 
averaged $3.75 a gallon. What is the Republican answer to rising 
gasoline prices? Well, let's cut those energy programs that are 
designed to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Let's cut them 60 
percent. That is what the House Republican plan does. It cuts programs 
to reduce our dependence on foreign energy from $4.7 billion a year to 
$2 billion. That is a 60-percent cut in programs to reduce our 
dependence on foreign energy.
  If anybody has driven on the highways of America, we all know we have 
work to do there. If we look at spending on infrastructure in our 
country versus our major competitors, we can see China is spending 9 
percent of its GDP on infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports, and 
rail. Europe spends 5 percent, and the United States spends 2.4 percent 
on infrastructure. We ought to do better than that.
  So what is the Republican answer? On transportation funding, they cut 
it 34 percent. They cut it 34 percent. I think we understand the 
direction our Republican colleagues want to take this country, and it 
is full speed in reverse. They want to go back to the failed policies 
that put this country on the brink of financial collapse the last time 
they were in charge.
  We will hear our colleagues on the Republican side say we can't raise 
any revenue. We can't raise any revenue, even though revenue is at or 
near a 60-year low right now. If we look historically at what it has 
taken to balance the budget, the last five times we balanced the 
budget, revenue was at 19.5 percent to 20.6 percent of GDP. Under the 
Republican plan, it never gets above 18.7 percent. So I don't think 
they are very serious about balancing the budget.
  Former Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg said this about 
the need for more revenue:

       [W]e also know revenues are going to have to go up, if 
     you're going to maintain a stable economy and a productive 
     economy, because of the simple fact that you're going to have 
     this huge generation that has to be paid for.

  That is the baby boom generation.
  Former Senate Budget Committee Chairman Domenici also said we need 
more revenue. He said:

       A complete deficit reduction plan--one that can gain 
     support from Republicans and Democrats--will need to combine 
     comprehensive spending cuts with structural entitlement 
     reform and new revenues . . . [A]dditional revenues will be 
     needed if we are serious about controlling our debt.

  One of the issues that has become more and more clear in recent 
months is that income disparity is widening in America. This shows, 
since 1979, what has happened to the top 1 percent in terms of their 
income and what has happened to the middle quintile and the lowest 
quintile. Everybody else has been pretty much stagnant since 1979. The 
top 1 percent has gone up like a rocket. I have nothing to be critical 
about in terms of people doing well. We want everyone to succeed, not 
just part of the population.
  The hard reality is that since 1995, the effective tax rate for the 
wealthiest 400 taxpayers in this country has been cut from about 30 
percent to 18 percent. That is not fair. The Republican plan is to give 
them more tax cuts. In fact, the House Republican plan on revenue 
provides an additional $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest among 
us by giving millionaires an average tax cut of more than $150,000 a 
year. It does not contribute one dime of revenue to deficit reduction.
  I want to end where I began. The last time our colleagues on the 
other side were in charge, when they controlled everything here from 
2001 to 2006 and the White House until 2008, their Republican policies 
led the United States to the brink of financial collapse. The proposals 
they are making here today are to take us right back to those failed 
policies. We shouldn't let them do that. That would be a mistake for 
our country and it would be a mistake for the world.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the fundamental question we as a 
Nation have to ask is: What are we going to do now? What are we going 
to do for the future? What is our plan for the future? The problem we 
have in this Senate is that the Democratic majority steadfastly and 
adamantly refuses to lay out their vision for the future while 
investing a considerable amount of time and effort in attacking anybody 
who does. They even voted down their own President's budget, as bad as 
it is--the most irresponsible budget ever submitted here, in my 
opinion.
  This is an odd situation we are in, and I will say that our country 
has never been in more danger financially. Erskine Bowles and Alan 
Simpson--Senator Conrad served on their committee--came before the 
Budget Committee, of which I am the ranking member, and told us in a 
signed statement--that this Nation has never faced a more predictable 
financial crisis. In other words, the course we are on today is 
unsustainable. They told us that. They told us it could happen within 
as little as 2 years, and that was over a year ago that they gave that 
testimony.
  We are in the danger zone financially. I know a lot of people would 
like to say it is not so, but it is so. Look at this chart. This chart 
shows the total debt of the eurozone, including the U.K., and the 
United States. Our debt exceeds that of the eurozone. We have a larger 
debt than they do. My good friend Senator Conrad, who is such a fine 
person, noted that President Bush presided over a period in which our 
debt increased, and it did increase. The largest debt President Bush 
ever had was $480 billion in 1 year, which was too large. President 
Obama has never had a budget that was less than a $1,200 billion 
deficit, and next year it will be over $1,000 billion again, according 
to expert testimony. We are on an unsustainable path. So I would note 
that our $15.5 trillion debt for the United States is greater than the 
eurozone and the eurozone has a larger population than we do.
  Let's look at this chart, which drives that number home again, in 
case anybody is worried about it. I am. It shows the average debt per 
person in the countries we have been reading about that are in 
financial trouble, and it hits them sometimes surprisingly, and we 
never know quite how it is going to hit. But look at this: The debt in 
Spain, which we know is in a rocky financial position, is $18,000 per 
person; Portugal, $19,000; France, $33,000; Greece, $38,000--Greece's 
debt per person is $38,000, whereas the United States is $44,000. Yes, 
we have a little larger economy, but this is the danger zone.
  A few people were saying we could have a financial problem in 2007 as 
a result of the bubble in housing. They warned us that might happen. A 
lot of people said: Oh, no, not this time; it is different; we have it 
under control. Yet we had a financial crisis that we haven't recovered 
from yet. So I would say we do need to take action.
  We do not have a budget. If we have a budget, why did President Obama 
comply with the United States Code and submit a budget this year? If we 
have a budget, why did the House pass a budget? If we have a budget, 
why did four different Democratic Congressmen and groups of Congressmen 
submit budgets in the House? If we have a

[[Page 6834]]

budget, why did Senator Conrad seek to have a budget markup in the 
committee? He basically said: Well, we may not bring it up on the 
floor, but the law says we should have a budget and I am going to bring 
one up in committee. The day before the committee met, the Democrats 
met in conference and told him not to do it.
  So we were expecting to have an actual markup of a budget presented 
by the Democratic leadership and we didn't get it. Why? Senator Reid 
said it would be foolish to have a budget--foolish. What did he mean by 
that? Why would the Democratic leader, attacking Republicans this 
morning, say it is foolish for us to produce a budget? Well, he said 
that because he meant it would be foolish politically. It would be not 
smart politically because the Democratic leadership in the Senate would 
have to lay out a vision for the future and the vision they wanted to 
sell and could agree on was one the American people wouldn't like. It 
wouldn't be smart. They would reject it. We would add the numbers up 
and see how much they actually want to increase taxes, how much they 
are going to increase the debt, how much spending is going to increase. 
That is not leadership. It is an utter failure of leadership.
  In contrast, the Republican House produced a budget that changes the 
debt course of America. It puts us on a sound financial path. One can 
agree with it or disagree with it. We will have other budgets offered 
today from the Republican side that will have substantial support, that 
will change the debt course we are on, balance the budget in a certain 
number of years, and put us on a sound financial path. I expect every 
one of those budgets to be opposed by every Member on the other side of 
the aisle. Again, it appears they will unanimously vote down President 
Obama's budget and not offer one of their own, directly contrary to the 
law.
  I know the majority leader this morning said: Well, filibuster is our 
problem. But we can't filibuster a budget. The Congressional Budget Act 
is designed to ensure that a budget will be passed. The Congressional 
Budget Act does not allow a filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to 
pass a budget, so why is it being mentioned? Because they prefer to 
hide under the table and not stand up and be counted and not address 
the greatest trouble this Nation has, which is our debt.
  I see some of my colleagues here today, and I ask unanimous consent 
to participate in a colloquy with my colleagues for up to 20 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I see Senator Blunt here, who was part 
of the leadership in the House before he came to the Senate. I know he 
has a deep understanding of these issues and the place we are in as a 
Nation today. I also see Senator Thune from South Dakota, who is an 
active member of the Budget Committee and part of the leadership here 
in the Senate.
  I am pleased to yield to Senator Blunt and ask him how he feels this 
morning as we move forward today to bring up a series of budgets with 
no plan from the majority party in the Senate.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I am embarrassed that we are not serious 
about this issue. Senator Thune and I served in the House together 
while the Senator from Alabama was leading in these budget fights in 
the Senate, and we had a budget every year. We didn't always every 
single year have a budget the House and the Senate could agree on, but 
the House always had a budget and the Senate always had a budget. We 
always complied with the 1974 Budget Act that says we have to have a 
budget. It says we have to have a budget by April 15.
  Frankly, we can't do our work without a budget. We can't get spending 
under control without a budget. We can't appropriate the way we should 
without a budget because the budget sets forth how much money we are 
willing to spend on defense and how much money we are willing to spend 
on military construction and how much money we are willing to spend on 
energy. If we don't have that, we don't have a starting place.
  I have all the respect in the world for our friend from North Dakota, 
Senator Conrad, but to be the chairman of the Budget Committee and to 
have to come to the floor and talk about what is wrong with the other 
budgets that have been produced when his committee hasn't produced one 
has to be frustrating for him, no matter how effective he seemed when 
he was talking about what was wrong with the people who had a plan. It 
is easy to find out what is wrong with somebody's plan, particularly 
when one doesn't have any obligation, apparently, on their own part to 
come up with a plan.
  We remember when the White House was asked a few weeks ago, when 
Senator Reid said the Senate will not have a budget and what their 
position on that was, they said: We don't have a position on that.
  The President submitted a budget. Why did the President submit a 
budget if he doesn't want the Congress to act on a budget? The House 
voted on his budget this year. It was 414 to 0. Not a single Democrat 
or Republican in the House voted for the President's budget. Last year 
we voted on the President's budget, as I assume we will again today. 
Not a single Democrat or Republican voted for the President's budget 
last year, and the position of the White House is they don't care. It 
is an amazing situation to find ourselves in.
  Whoever is in charge of the Senate in the future needs to have a 
commitment to the American people that we are going to have a budget, 
we are going to have an appropriations process, and we are going to get 
this spending under control. We have maxed out the credit card; 
everybody gets that. The Senator from Alabama showed this morning with 
his chart the figures representing our debt relative to the countries 
we sort of laugh at, how irresponsible they are--numbers that I think 
we ought to look at pretty carefully. When our debt per person is 
greater than the Greek debt per person--I haven't seen the front page 
of a paper in a while that didn't have something about chaos in Greece 
on it because they have let their government get bigger than their 
economy can support. They have let their debt get bigger than the gross 
domestic product of their country by almost two times, but now we have 
exceeded our debt by--our debt exceeds our potential to produce goods 
and services in a year for the first time ever. In fact, in the 3 years 
we haven't had a budget, the debt of the country has increased almost 
$5 trillion, as we have spent over $10 trillion in those 3 years 
without a budget. It is unacceptable. Everybody here knows it is 
unacceptable. And every American family, frankly, who thinks about it 
knows it is unacceptable.
  The Senator's fight, along with what I am sure has to be Chairman 
Conrad's frustration to not have a budget, could not be a more 
important topic for us to be talking about today or for the American 
people to be asking the question: Why not? Why are you refusing to do 
your job? I know nobody in this Chamber knows as much about the budget, 
in my opinion, as the Senator does. Your frustration of where this does 
not allow us to go to do the right things is as great as anybody's, 
maybe greater than anybody's. But I think all of us know we should be 
doing the right thing here, which is to obey the law, create a budget, 
and have a budget that gets us to the place we know we need to get to, 
where our economy, once again, is right-sized to our government or, 
more importantly, our government is right-sized to our economy.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Briefly, before I go to Senator Thune and get him 
engaged in this discussion, based on the Senator's experience in the 
budgetary process, I'm sure he is aware that about 60 percent of 
Federal spending is mandatory entitlement spending. Does the Senator 
think we can develop a long-term plan for the future that fails to 
address that large portion that is growing faster than the other part 
of the budget?
  Mr. BLUNT. No, we cannot. Last year, for the first time ever, all of 
the money that came in was less than the money that went out 
automatically to these programs, where, if you meet the

[[Page 6835]]

definition for the program, you get the money. It is at 60 percent now. 
It has not been that many years ago that it was at 50 percent. It was 
not that many years before that it was at 40 percent.
  So we have to deal with these issues because they lead us to an 
inevitable place. Do we want to be Europe today a few years from now? 
Surely not. Surely the answer is no. We cannot avoid that unless we 
have a plan.
  It is easy to talk about how bad the other plan is. But what we all 
ought to be doing is coming up with a plan that gets us to where we all 
know we need to be.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.
  I thank Senator Thune for his leadership and active participation in 
this debate. I ask the Senator, what is on his mind this morning, as we 
are heading for votes on four different budgets?
  Mr. THUNE. I say to my colleague from Alabama, who is the ranking 
member on the Budget Committee, I got on the Budget Committee in this 
session of Congress and have been on it now for 2 years. We have not 
written a budget either year. So it sort of begs the question about 
whether the committee has any relevance around here anymore.
  But to the point about spending and debt--we get down here and we 
talk about it. I think it has been interesting. The former Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen--who up until several months 
ago held that position--would come in front of Congress, in front of 
congressional committees, and say the greatest threat to America's 
national security is our national debt. There are a lot of external 
threats the United States faces. The world continues to be a dangerous 
place, with al-Qaida and the Iranian nuclear capability and China and 
North Korea. You can go right down the list. But for the top ranking 
military official in this country to come before Congress and say the 
greatest threat to America's national security is our national debt 
speaks volumes about what our priority ought to be. To think that we 
here in the Senate now for over 1,100 days have not passed a budget is 
pretty stunning in light of that reality; and also to say that somehow, 
because the Budget Control Act last summer passed, we did not need a 
budget misses the point.
  The reason we had the Budget Control Act is because we did not pass a 
budget. The Budget Control Act is what you get when you do not pass a 
budget. You end up at the 11th hour having to put something together to 
deal with the issue of the debt limit, which is what we were dealing 
with at that time. It did put some caps on spending, but it does not do 
anything to deal with the long-term structural challenges facing this 
country, which is what a budget is designed to do.
  The President submitted a budget this year, which would suggest he 
thought we ought to be working on a budget. The chairman of the Budget 
Committee, as my colleagues have mentioned, even called a Budget 
Committee markup, where we went there and said: Bring amendments. We 
went, we brought amendments, and we gave opening statements. We gaveled 
it out and said we are not going to do it.
  So here we are again on the floor of the Senate without a budget, 
having to vote on other budgets presented by some of our colleagues, 
the House of Representatives, which passed a budget this year earlier, 
and the President's budget. To be fair, the President at least 
submitted a budget. It was a terrible budget if you are looking at the 
issues of spending and debt. In fact, I think the reason it got voted 
down 414 to nothing in the House of Representatives is because it added 
$11 trillion to the debt. It takes our total debt at the end of the 10-
year period to $26 trillion and spends $47 trillion over the next 10 
years and raises taxes by $2 trillion in a very fragile economy. It was 
a bad attempt, but at least it was an attempt. It was an attempt that 
yielded zero votes in the House of Representative, and it will be 
interesting to see if on the floor of the Senate today there will be 
any Democrats who will vote for their President's budget proposal.
  But the point the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Missouri 
make is a good one, and that is simply this: We have a responsibility 
under the law to spell out what we would do to get this country on a 
more sustainable fiscal path. That is something that is in the budget 
laws that the Senator from Alabama pointed out. Yet here we go on, year 
after year after year now--3 years in a row, over 1,100 days--without 
the Senate doing its job and passing a budget. That is significant for 
a lot of reasons, not the least of which is this is the fourth year in 
a row where we are going to have a trillion dollar deficit. Under this 
administration, you have the highest deficit, the second highest 
deficit, the third highest deficit, and the fourth highest deficit in 
history--4 consecutive years now of trillion dollar deficits.
  But we are concerned about the economy. We need the economy to get 
growing again, to expand, to create jobs. That helps address all these 
things. What is interesting about it--and I know both my colleagues on 
the floor are well aware of this--there is a lot of research that has 
been done with regard to developed countries that start carrying these 
high debt loads. All the analysis suggests when you get a debt-to-GDP 
ratio of more than 90 percent, it costs you about a point to a point 
and a half of economic growth every single year. Well, in our country, 
a percentage point of economic growth means a million jobs. So our debt 
to GDP--which is now over 100 percent--means it is draining our economy 
of economic growth and, therefore, lots of jobs.
  The Congressional Budget Office said about the President's budget, if 
his budget were to be enacted, it could cost us up to 2.2 percent of 
economic growth over the course of the next 10 years, which would 
amount to 2.2 million jobs. So we know the President's effort was not 
serious. He did at least put something out there. But we need a serious 
discussion in the Senate about a budget that will put us on a pathway 
not only to get spending and debt under control but to allow the 
economy to grow and expand and get Americans back to work. That is what 
is at stake here. That is why we believe we ought to have a budget. 
That is why we are going to have an exercise today where at least we 
get a chance to vote on some budgets as advanced by some of our 
colleagues in the House of Representatives as well as here in the 
Senate and the President's budget.
  The fact is, this is the third year in a row where we have not 
followed the law and gone through the process of getting a budget here 
on the floor of the Senate. For our colleagues on the other side to 
suggest it is not necessary simply because the Budget Control Act was 
passed last summer not only is inconsistent with the law, but it begs 
the point about why did the President submit his budget, why did they 
call a Budget Committee markup in the first place? Clearly, somebody 
around here thinks we ought to be doing our job. But we are not doing 
it.
  So I would hope, as we debate this issue today, at least we will put 
in front of the American people the arguments we think need to be made 
with regard to getting spending and debt under control, addressing the 
long-term, the mandatory side of the budget my colleague from Missouri, 
Senator Blunt, mentioned. That is where we know the money is. That is 
what nobody wants to deal with. We keep squeezing a little bit more out 
of the discretionary side of the budget. We have to take that on if we 
are going to save Social Security and Medicare and reform these 
entitlement programs. That is what a budget process would do. It does 
not take 60 votes under the law. It takes 51.
  To come down here and say Republicans will filibuster again is 
completely out of whack with what we know to be the facts around here 
and the law; that is, that it takes 51 votes to pass a budget and a 
reconciliation bill that could possibly follow.
  I appreciate the leadership of my colleague from Alabama as the 
ranking member on the Budget Committee. I look forward today, at least, 
for the chance for us to talk about a budget and what we ought to be 
doing for the future of this country since we do not

[[Page 6836]]

have a budget on the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I could not agree with the Senator more. I would note, 
the reason we are here today is because a budget was not produced. The 
Parliamentarian of the Senate ruled that a budget has not been produced 
and, therefore, under the rules of the Budget Act, budgets that have 
been filed can be brought to the floor. That is how we were able to 
force the votes today.
  Senator Thune, briefly--and I will also ask Senator Blunt, who is in 
our leadership--isn't it a fact that what happened with the Budget 
Control Act is that we had spent so much money, we had reached the 
spending limit of America--the debt ceiling--and we had to have a last-
minute effort to reach an agreement; the Republicans insisted that we 
had to reduce spending, and we got a reduction in spending from $47 
trillion over the next 10 years to $45 trillion? You would have thought 
that was going to bankrupt America--that we would spend $45 trillion 
instead of $47 trillion.
  That is not a budget. It was a limit on spending, and it was done 
because Republicans said: We are not going to raise the debt limit 
until you at least cut some spending. That is all that could be 
accomplished. We avoided a crisis, but it was a pretty tense time.
  Senator Blunt.
  Mr. BLUNT. I would like to stay on this. Saying the Budget Control 
Act is a budget--as Senator Thune mentioned, if that was the budget, 
why did the President submit one? Nobody believes that is a budget. The 
Parliamentarian said it was not a budget. But what it is--it would be 
as if your family sitting down to decide what money you are going to 
have to spend this year said: OK, we have X number of dollars. Let's go 
out and spend it. That is no budget, particularly when you had to 
borrow 40 percent of the X number of dollars you said you had. We are 
borrowing 40 percent of the money we are going to spend. The only 
number we have that we have agreed to is the maximum amount we will 
spend, knowing we do not have anywhere near that number, and we have 
not allocated that in any way.
  That is no budget. Everybody knows that. Everybody also knows you 
cannot get there unless you have a way to get there. Your family says: 
OK, we have done the budgeting for the year. We decided if we borrow 
almost as much money as we make, and we spend that somewhere, that is 
our budget. We have not decided where we are going to spend it, we have 
not decided how we are going to spend it, and we have not even decided 
a reasonable way we are going to get it, but we said: Here is the 
number we are going to spend. Now, family, let's all go out and start 
spending and we will meet here later this year and see how it worked 
out. It makes no sense at all, and everybody knows that.
  Interestingly, we do not hear much about this. It is surprising to me 
that every day there is not a story about why for the first time ever 
for 3 years straight now the Senate has decided it does not have to do 
the work the law requires it to do, as we dig this hole deeper and 
deeper and deeper. The longer we wait, the more difficult the solution 
is going to be. Every single day that passes, it is harder to solve 
this problem than it would have been the day before. Now we have gone 3 
years without a budget and apparently we are going to go through the 
rest of this process without a budget. By the time we get to the end of 
this year, we will be approaching that fourth year without a budget. It 
is not as though this would be a good idea, the law says we have to 
have one. And we should have one.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Senator Blunt has been in the leadership in the House. 
He is in the leadership of the Senate. Be frank with us. What is it 
that would cause the majority party not to want to lead, not to want to 
lay out a plan for the future, and attack anybody who does lay out a 
plan? I know it is hard. We all know this is a tough thing. But doesn't 
the Senator think a party that aspires to lead the Senate should, 
instead of hiding under the table, stand up and say what they believe 
we should do over the next decade financially?
  Mr. BLUNT. I think the law even requires it. I think the leader on 
the other side, the majority leader, has been pretty clear about it. It 
is bad politics to have a budget, bad politics to tell the American 
people officially what we are for, bad politics for our Members to have 
to go on record saying what they are for.
  The President submitted a budget. There are 54 Members of the 
President's party here in the Senate. Fifty-one of them could pass this 
budget. It would be the Senate-passed budget. Then you would go to the 
House and say: OK, let's look at the House budget and the Senate budget 
and see if we can agree on a budget.
  But they actually have been pretty transparent. You have to give them 
some credit for not trying to be different than they really are. They 
said: It would be politically foolish for us to pass a budget because 
then people would know what every one of the 51 of our Members is for, 
and they would have to say what they are for.
  My guess is that nobody in the majority will say they are for 
anything today--not for the President's budget, not for any budget we 
will submit. So you go home and say: I am not for any of that. You 
can't accuse me of being for a bad plan because I am for no plan.
  That is where we are.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, we need revenue--they use that word but will not 
explicitly say whom they want to tax except a very few rich. The 
Buffett tax would produce about $4 billion a year when we have a $1,200 
billion deficit.
  I would note that Senator Manchin, a former Governor of West 
Virginia, said in today's Politico that he would have been impeached if 
he failed to produce a budget as West Virginia's Governor. He said: 
Sure I have a problem with failing to offer a budget. As a former 
Governor, my responsibility was to put a balanced budget forward.
  Well, I see my colleague is here. I think our time is up. There might 
be a couple of minutes for Senator Thune.
  Mr. THUNE. If the Senator will yield for a minute, I assume in 
Alabama and Missouri and I know in South Dakota our States pass 
budgets. It can be done. You can balance your budget. It would be nice 
if we had a requirement in the Constitution that would demand that the 
way many of our States do. Certainly, there doesn't seem to be the 
political will here to do it absent that. But it can be done, and hard 
decisions have to be made. South Dakota went through it last year, made 
some hard choices, our Governor, our legislature. Those are the types 
of hard decisions that are going to have to made here, but it takes a 
certain amount of political will and a willingness to make hard 
decisions. As the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Missouri 
have both pointed out, there doesn't seem to be the willingness here to 
make those hard votes.
  As has already been pointed out, the leader on the other side has 
said: What point is there in doing a budget? And the President of the 
United States and his folks, when they were asked whether the Senate 
ought to do a budget, said: Well, we don't have an opinion about that, 
which I think is really ironic coming from the leader of the free world 
about whether this country ought to have a budget to work with.
  But that being said, as our time winds down here, to argue, as our 
colleagues have, that we don't need one misses the point. The 
Parliamentarian has ruled that the Budget Control Act was, in fact, not 
a budget. We need to do a budget here in the Senate. More importantly, 
the American people expect it and the taxpayers deserve it. That is why 
we ought to be having a debate on what we are going to vote for today, 
not what we are going to vote against.
  It will be interesting to see if any of our colleagues on the other 
side vote for any of the budget proposals we put forward today, 
including the President of the United States; his budget will be voted 
on along with several other Republican budgets. I have a feeling we 
will be for some things. I have a feeling, as you said earlier, that 
they are not going to be for anything.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, is the time up on this side?

[[Page 6837]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the use of 
calculators be permitted on the Senate floor during consideration of 
the motions to proceed to budget resolutions.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I wish to go back to the point my 
colleagues have made. It is fascinating to me. You did not hear them 
talk for one moment about the substance of their proposals--not a 
moment. Did you notice that? I wonder why that would be? I think I 
know. It is because their proposals would take us right back to the 
failed policies that brought this country to the brink of economic 
collapse. That is what happened the last time they were in charge. They 
controlled both bodies from 2001 until 2006, the White House until 
2008. So none of those policies they put in place when they controlled 
both Chambers could be changed. And where were we at the end of 2008? 
Where were we? We were losing 800,000 jobs a month and the economy was 
shrinking at a rate of 9 percent. And the proposals they have, the 
substantive proposals they are making here today, take us right back to 
those same failed policies.
  It is no wonder you did not hear them saying one word about the 
budget proposals on which we are going to be voting because they are 
the same failed policies that put this country in the ditch. Instead, 
what you hear them say is that we on our side have no budget. 
Fascinating.
  Well, let me just put up again what we passed last year in law called 
the Budget Control Act.
  Let me again read from that law. It says:

       The allocations, aggregates, and levels--

  Spending levels--

     in subsection . . . shall apply in the Senate in the same 
     manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2012.

  In the next clause, it makes the exact same statement for 2013, that 
the Budget Control Act that was passed last year will serve in the same 
manner as a budget resolution.
  Earlier this year, pursuant to that law, I gave the appropriators, 
which I am required to do under the law, what they could spend, and 
here it is. I have this chart being blown up.
  Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, $13,397 million; Armed Services, 
$146,698 million; Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, $22,167 million; 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, $15,016 million; Energy and 
Natural Resources, $5,276 million. It sounds kind of like a budget does 
it not? Doesn't that sound kind of like a budget? Well, guess what, it 
is a budget. It is in the Budget Control Act that we passed last year 
instead of a budget resolution.
  Again, anybody who has taken high school civics knows a budget law is 
stronger than any budget resolution. Why would that be the case? 
Because a budget resolution is purely a congressional document. It 
never goes to the President for his signature. A budget law, by 
definition, has to be signed by the President. So last year, instead of 
a budget resolution, we passed a budget law called the Budget Control 
Act. Pursuant to that law, I gave the appropriators--earlier this year, 
before the deadline--their allocations, and I was just reading from 
them. Finance, $1,337 billion; Foreign Relations, $28,640 million; 
Homeland Security, $102,276 million; the Judiciary Committee, $18,545 
million; Rules and Administration, $41 million. It sounds a lot like a 
budget doesn't it? Because that is exactly what it provided. It 
provided the spending limit this year and for next year. That is in the 
Budget Control Act we passed in the Senate last year on a strong 
bipartisan vote, passed the House of Representatives, and signed into 
law by the President of the United States.
  So when we hear over and over that there is no budget, no spending 
limits for this year, it is just not so. There are spending limits for 
this year. There are spending limits for next year. They are included 
in the Budget Control Act, which is a law. It was passed. It was signed 
by the President. That Budget Control Act limited spending for the next 
10 years--put spending caps in place. Budget resolutions rarely have 
spending caps for more than 1 year. The Budget Control Act had 10 years 
of caps, saving $900 billion. That is the law.
  I see the Senator from Michigan is on the floor--a very valued member 
of the Budget Committee. Welcome to this debate. We have been hearing a 
lot from the other side--interestingly enough, I want to say to the 
Senator, almost nothing about the substance of their proposals. I 
assume that is because they want to go back to the same failed policies 
that put this country in the ditch we are still digging out of. All 
they want to talk about is not having a budget resolution--not one word 
that instead of a budget resolution, we passed a budget law, as the 
Senator well knows, the Budget Control Act.
  How much time will the Senator need?
  Ms. STABENOW. I will use 7 minutes or so.
  Mr. CONRAD. I will allocate the Senator 10 minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, first let me thank the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, who I have to say is going to be sorely missed. In fact, I 
am not sure we are going to let him go. I think we are going to lock 
the doors to his office and not let him leave. He has been such an 
incredible valued Member of the Senate and a leader for our country on 
these issues.
  It is absolutely true that what we are really debating is whether we 
go back to policies that put us in the huge deficit ditch in which we 
find ourselves or whether we continue to go forward as a country. We 
need to keep going forward and going forward even more quickly 
certainly. But in my State, we are seeing us begin to move forward, 
with manufacturing coming back and innovation opportunities, and we 
need to continue to push for that.
  But let me stress as well what the chairman has said. We passed the 
Budget Control Act by 74 votes in the Senate--74 votes, a bipartisan 
vote--on August 2, 2011. It put in place the spending caps the chairman 
talked about. It laid out something that, frankly, in my time since 
being here starting in 2001, has been done differently and, frankly, 
has a stronger basis for it because instead of just having something 
passed by the House and the Senate, it was actually signed by the 
President. It is law. It has the force of law, and it is in a situation 
where it has even more impact than it would normally.
  So, yes, we did not do the normal process. What we did was one better 
than the normal process, which is the Budget Control Act. It did pass. 
It did put in place the spending caps and set up, as you know, a 
deficit reduction commission and a requirement on cuts that will take 
place in January.
  It is also true that what we do not have is a long-term plan. As the 
chairman has talked about over and over again, we have to come together 
on a long-term deficit reduction plan. So we agree on that. There are 
many people who have talked about that, worked on various proposals. 
The President has lead negotiations. Members in this body have. And 
certainly the chairman of the committee has continued to lead those 
efforts. And we need to get that done. But in terms of what we have on 
a budget resolution that puts in place limits or caps, that has been 
done.
  Now, when we look at what is in front of us and the votes we are 
going to be having today, it is very simple in terms of values. The 
question is, Are you on the side of the middle class or on the side of 
millionaires in this country?
  You know, folks in my State, the middle class, feel as though the 
system has been pretty much rigged against them. All they want is a 
fair shot. We have families in Michigan struggling to make ends meet, 
and they are struggling to send their kids to college. Over and over 
again, they look at what is going on here and scratch their heads. And 
why in the world would we continue to focus on things that help a

[[Page 6838]]

privileged few, those who have had the most benefits in the last 
decade? Why do we continue to see policies like these budgets that, in 
fact, focus on more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and ask 
middle-class families to sacrifice more and more? They shake their 
heads and say: What is going on here? You guys just do not get it, what 
is happening to the majority of families.
  And what we are seeing once again is that rather than focusing on 
jobs and bringing the economy back on track, bringing jobs back to the 
United States, strengthening our ability to make things and grow things 
in this country, which has to happen if we are going to have a middle 
class and have an economy, what we see our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle do is wanting to double student loan rates and eliminate 
Medicare as we know it in order to give another round of tax cuts to 
millionaires and billionaires. That makes absolutely no sense.
  Instead of spending our time passing jobs bills that we need to pass, 
by the way, including the farm bill, which affects 16 million people in 
this country when we talk about rural communities and agriculture and 
food processing and all of our efforts on food policy across the 
country, instead of doing that, they want to spend their time focusing 
on something that will give more tax breaks to millionaires and ask 
middle-class families one more time--just one more time--to sacrifice.
  Folks in my State are saying we have had enough of this. What we 
ought to be doing is our to-do list--stopping outsourcing and rewarding 
companies that bring jobs home; helping responsible homeowners 
refinance and take advantage of today's lower interest rates; cutting 
taxes for small businesses that are creating jobs and investing in 
their companies; continuing critical investments in clean energy 
manufacturing for the future; passing a farm bill for 16 million 
Americans whose jobs rely on agriculture and our rural economy; and we 
should focus on helping our veterans coming home from the war find 
good-paying jobs, thanking them for their service.
  We have a lot to do. Instead, we are in the same old failed debate 
that got us in the hole, that got us to the situation where there was a 
crisis on Wall Street, that got us to the point where we lost millions 
and millions of jobs in the past. Are we going to go backward or 
forward? That is the question.
  Right now, what are the differences when we look at the four 
different Republican plans? They are very similar. Here are three basic 
things that are the same. They all end Medicare as an insurance plan 
and increase costs by thousands of dollars for seniors in our country, 
which puts them back in a plan that is before 1964, where seniors would 
have to try to find private insurance. Of course, as we get older, we 
all spend more health care dollars; we need more health care, so costs 
will be higher. It is tougher for older people to find affordable 
insurance. That is why we created Medicare in 1965. They want to go 
back prior to that time.
  Second, they allow student loan rates to double. All the plans would 
double the cost of that. I don't know about anybody else, but in 
Michigan, where we are transforming the economy and going to advanced 
manufacturing and new technology, we have folks in their forties and 
fifties going back to school, and we have young people going to 
college. They are not asking for more expense. The average student debt 
in Michigan is about $25,000. They are not asking to add to that 
anymore. All four of these proposals would do that--double the student 
loan interest rate.
  By the way, these are loans where people are taking out the money, 
and they are responsible and they are paying it back. But they are 
asking for help to make sure they can afford to be able to have those 
loans, so they can dream big dreams and go to college and be 
successful. I thought that is what our country was all about. When I 
was growing up in the little town of Clare--my dad was sick when I was 
in high school--if I hadn't had help with tuition and fees and 
scholarship and loans, I would not have been able to go to college. The 
great thing about our country is that a red-headed, freckled-face girl 
in Clare, who folks didn't know--folks somewhere decided that maybe I 
ought to have a chance to go to college. Because of that, I have had 
tremendous opportunities in my life. We have a lot of young men and 
women working hard every day who deserve the same opportunity. People 
who lost a job and are going back to get training deserve the same 
opportunity.
  All four of these plans end Medicare as an insurance plan, increase 
by thousands of dollars costs to seniors, double student loan rates, 
and all of it is to make sure that we give more tax breaks to 
millionaires and billionaires. I know at least one or more of these 
plans adds $150,000, I believe, in average tax cuts. That is more than 
the average person in Michigan makes in a year--or the average person 
in America. We are saying to seniors, families, and students that we 
want you to pay more so we can give another tax cut to the folks who 
have already gotten the majority of the benefits in the last 10 years 
economically.
  Let me stress one more time before ending, I think this goes to the 
values represented in these budgets. Do we want to say that retirees 
and older people in our country have the opportunity to live long 
lives? Social Security and Medicare are great American success stories. 
They literally brought a generation out of poverty to live in dignity, 
like my mom, who is almost 86, to a place where she is healthy and can 
play with her grandkids because she had the opportunity to be in a 
system called Medicare, and will be able to live longer. Those are good 
things, good values, not bad values.
  All four of these budgets--the Paul budget would end Medicare in 
2014; the Lee budget would end it in 2017; the Ryan budget in 2023; and 
the Toomey budget in 2023. I cannot imagine that Americans want to go 
back to that system where seniors cannot count on the ability to have 
their doctor and get their medicine and have the dignity of a long and 
healthy life.
  Madam President, I urge our colleagues to vote no on every one of 
these resolutions which go backwards, and support our efforts to keep 
America going forward and focus on those things that will make our 
economic recovery even faster.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we need to lay out a plan for the 
future of this country. That is what this is all about. My colleague 
just said vote no on all of them and keep going, don't go back. What I 
hear being said--and there is no ambiguity about it--is let's keep on 
the path we are on. This is good enough. Here is the letter: Let's be 
happy. We are in Washington, and we are having fun, I caught a fish and 
we had a party, send more money.
  Isn't that what it is all about, isn't this what we are hearing from 
the other side? Send more money. We will take care of things for you. 
We don't have to cut anything. We are not on an unsustainable path. 
Actually, we cut spending over the next 10 years from $47 billion to 
$45 billion. Aren't we great. That is a huge increase over the current 
level of spending; it increases spending every year under the Budget 
Control Act--not nearly enough to change the debt course of the 
country. But that is OK.
  By the way, do you know what President Obama's budget does? It wipes 
out the sequester. Before the ink is even dry on the Budget Control 
Act, the agreement at the eleventh hour to reduce spending over the 
next decade by $2 trillion, President Obama submits a budget in 
February proposing to wipe out the sequester--all $1.1 trillion of it. 
What kind of commitment do we have to control spending? Send more 
money; that is the solution. Tax, spend, tax, spend. I wish it weren't 
so. I wish I could say differently.
  Well, let me ask this question: Do my colleagues not feel a 
responsibility to tell the American people what their financial plan 
for the future of America is? Do they have no responsibility? Do they 
feel no sense of obligation, no duty? All they want to do is attack 
anybody else's plan who is trying to save this Republic from financial 
disaster--attack them because they might

[[Page 6839]]

want to reduce spending somewhere, and somebody might not like it 
because they didn't get quite as much from the government as they got 
before. Are there no programs that we are prepared to reduce or 
eliminate that are wasteful and not worthwhile? Is there nothing in 
this government? Maybe we stop GSA from having hot tubs in Las Vegas; 
maybe we ought to at least do that. How about the TSA, which has 
warehouses with millions of dollars of equipment in them that is not 
even being used? What about the $500 million Solyndra loan and other 
bogus loans to political cronies? And evidence is coming out that there 
is more of that. Can't we cut that? Or will they say that is anti-
energy?
  What they need to do is get off the backs of the energy producers and 
allow more energy to be produced. It doesn't take taxpayer money to 
produce more energy and have decent regulations. Do you know what they 
do? They send checks to Uncle Sam. They pay royalties on offshore and 
Federal lands. They pay taxes on the money they make. The people who 
work at the oil companies pay taxes. That is the way you get money, not 
by just taxing somebody.
  I think the American people fundamentally understand that a tax on 
the rich is a tax on the private sector, and when you overtax the 
private sector, you get less of it. It is the private sector that 
creates the wealth that pays the taxes that allows us to distribute 
money here and go back to our districts and act as though we are some 
hero for returning people their money that we took from them, and we 
want to be some specially credited person because we brought back some 
bacon to our district. The American people understand this. They are 
not happy about this.
  The Budget Control Act is not close to what we need to do to put our 
country on a sound path. It is not close. I have to say that the 
President's budget undoes half of that. When I said the Budget Control 
Act took spending down from $47 trillion to $45 trillion, President 
Obama's budget that was submitted a few weeks ago would add $1.6 
trillion back, so that would make it go from $45 trillion to $46 
trillion in spending over 10 years.
  This is the way they propose to operate this government. That is what 
their plan is. Why won't they lay it out? Because they know the 
American people will look at it and say: Good grief, that is not what 
we want for this country. You guys have to get your house in order. We 
expect you to cut some spending. We know there is waste, fraud, and 
abuse in the capital. You better get busy.
  All we hear from my Democratic colleagues is: Send more money. What 
is particularly troubling is the suggestion that it is OK, we don't 
have to make any changes. But we do. We do have to make changes.
  Let me show you this chart. The changes will be difficult, but not so 
bad as to have the country be damaged in any significant way. This is 
where our spending level is today, $3.6 trillion. This is the next 
decade under the Budget Control Act, where we cut spending. In that 
late-night confrontation before the government was to shut down because 
we reached the spending limit and could not borrow anymore money, an 
agreement was reached to take $2 trillion out of spending over 10 
years. That is what this chart is--after that cut had been put in 
place. President Obama wants to wipe out half of it. So it would add $8 
trillion in new spending. If you cut that to $6 trillion or $5 
trillion, we would balance the budget. You would still show an 
increase; it would just maybe be a $4 trillion or a $5 trillion 
increase in spending instead of $8 trillion. We could make a big 
difference there.
  The path we are on is unsustainable. The path we are on leaves us in 
the danger zone. The path we are on has led us to have more debt than 
Europe and more per capita than any country in Europe, and it is 
unsustainable. I am worried about this.
  I am particularly worried that we don't have a sense in this body 
that we have to make changes. We are going to have to look at the 
entitlement programs. I have heard Senator Conrad say this repeatedly. 
He served on the debt commission, and they said we have to do that.
  Does the President propose any entitlement changes in his budget? No. 
Are the Democratic Members of the Senate proposing entitlement changes? 
No. Who is? Congressman Ryan has proposed entitlement changes. He is 
prepared to defend them as being the kind of changes that will 
preserve, protect, and sustain Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
  We cannot allow entitlement spending to continue to increase at rates 
four and five times the inflation rate. That is an unsustainable 
spending course. When 60 percent of our budget is increasing at three 
or four times the inflation rate, we are in big trouble, and we can't 
tax our way out of that. That is just a fact. Upper income people are 
going to have to contribute more to Medicare. They just are. We don't 
have the money. We can't just make it up and act like that is not 
reality. It is reality.
  So I think the budgets we will see from this side will be attacked 
viciously as wanting to kill these programs. They are not designed to 
kill these programs. They are designed to put us on a financial path 
where we can be healthy and prosperous and sustain the benefits we have 
promised. But a big chunk of Medicare is paid for out of the General 
Treasury of the United States, and people with big incomes ought to 
contribute to some of that, and they can do that. We can do that as a 
nation.
  So, Madam President, I think it is rather odd that we have come to 
the floor and called up--without debate, without opportunity to amend--
a series of budgets. Why? Because no budget has been produced in the 
Budget Committee, and under the rules of the Senate members can bring 
up a budget. We don't get to have amendments, but we can bring up one. 
Under the Budget Act, the Budget Committee should have hearings, have a 
markup, offer amendments, and bring the budget to the floor with a 
guaranteed 50 hours of debate, unlimited amendments, and then final 
passage within a certain time. That is the way it works. It guarantees 
priority to a budget because the people who wrote the Budget Act in 
1974 knew how important a budget was. They gave it priority. It can't 
be filibustered. It can pass with 50 votes, with the Vice President--51 
votes otherwise can pass the budget--because we need a budget, and we 
should be seeking to do that.
  To me, it is pretty frustrating to see our current situation. So I 
guess I will conclude by asking: Does the majority party not feel an 
obligation to tell the American people where they would like to lead 
the country; and do they not, in a time of financial crisis, want to 
lay out a plan they can rally behind and ask the American people to 
rally behind to save our country?
  It is an absolute fact this country has never, ever, ever, been in a 
financial condition as severe as this one. We have never, ever faced 
the long-term systemic debt threat we face today. We have never been on 
a path so unsustainable. Never. Nothing close to it. This is a threat 
to the future of America, and the party that aspires to lead the Senate 
should lay out its plan. The President should be engaged. He should be 
insisting we pass a budget that has some meaning and would change the 
debt course of the country. Yet what do we have? Nothing but attacks on 
Members of Congress who lay out plans that would actually do that.
  They do not want to bring up a budget. Why? They say it is foolish. 
It would be foolish for us. Yes, it would be foolish to reveal 
ourselves. The American people might add up how many taxes we want to 
increase. They might add everything up and say: Your plan doesn't 
change the debt course. They may add things up and say: You spend too 
much. So we don't want to do that. That would be foolish.
  I have never seen a situation where, in a time of crisis, this Nation 
has had a failure of leadership as great as we are seeing today. Now 
maybe I don't get this. Maybe something is wrong with me. But I think 
everyone who

[[Page 6840]]

cares about the Republic should be prepared to stand and vote on 
proposals to put us on the right path.
  We are not on the right path today. We have a threat out there that 
could put us in a financial crisis overnight. It could happen very 
quickly. When that occurs, it will be too late to fix it.
  We saw the warnings that led to the 2007 financial crisis. That was a 
deeply damaging event--that crisis. We haven't gotten over it yet, and 
we could have another one. Wouldn't that be terrible? These numbers 
don't assume we have a recession. They have no real recession projected 
in the numbers we will see. We need to avoid a debt crisis, another 
financial crisis, as Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, on the debt 
commission, told us to avoid. We need to do that, and we are going to 
have some leadership on both sides of the aisle, I believe.
  So, Madam President, I will reserve the remainder of my time, and I 
yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, Senator Menendez is here to be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and we can do that at this point.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, last year the Budget Control Act 
became the law of the land, and it set discretionary spending limits 
for security and nonsecurity spending for not just 1 year but for 2 
years. It puts us on a path to reducing the deficit by more than $2 
trillion over the next 10 years.
  We now hear claims from our friends on the other side of the aisle 
that we don't have a budget. I guess if one says say it often enough 
people may believe it. But it seems our Republican colleagues have 
selective amnesia about the Budget Control Act.
  We have a budget. It is called the Budget Control Act, and it has the 
force of law, which is more than we can say for any of the proposals 
before us today. So today's debate makes me wonder if we are on a dance 
floor instead of the Senate floor because we have already taken one 
step forward and now it is two steps back.
  These Republican proposals call for extreme cuts on the backs of 
seniors, students, and the most vulnerable in our society without 
asking any contributions from millionaires and corporations. That is 
not fair, it is not balanced, and it doesn't reflect the priorities of 
New Jersey's middle-class families.
  I strongly believe we must get our Nation's fiscal house in order, 
and I have always supported a fair and balanced approach to reducing 
our deficits. But I cannot, in good conscience, support proposals in 
which working families, seniors, and students must endure billions in 
cuts while oil companies--making $1 trillion in profits over the next 
decade--and billionaires are not asked to pay their fair share.
  Supporters of the House Republican budget, introduced by Congressman 
Ryan, justify their radical changes to Medicare and other programs by 
saying: We simply can't afford it. But in the very same Republican 
budget in which we can't afford that, we see an average tax cut of over 
$\1/4\ million to millionaires, and that is on top of the six-figure 
tax break they are already currently receiving from the Bush tax cuts. 
At the same time Republicans propose to add thousands of dollars of 
increased costs on the backs of middle-class seniors, they somehow find 
the money for another tax cut for millionaires that is worth more than 
four times the entire average household income of an American family.
  People who have worked hard to build personal wealth should be 
applauded for their success. At the same time, many of them are willing 
to contribute to help the Nation in this tough economic time, if we 
ask. We know from experience that asking a fair share from the 
wealthiest and most successful, as we did during the Clinton era of 
prosperity, will not break our economy. It just comes down to a matter 
of fairness.
  What we are seeing today is our friends on the other side of the 
aisle taking yet another run at shifting our Nation's financial burdens 
onto middle-class families, seniors and students, all while defending 
special breaks for their special interests. How is that fair? How is 
that balanced? It is not. And we can't let it stand.
  Let's talk about the facts. Republicans are not only seeking to 
repeal the affordable care act, but they are also dismantling Medicare, 
Medicaid, and other vital programs. Under the Ryan budget, New Jersey's 
health care system would be devastated. The Republican plan would cut 
$39 billion in health benefits from New Jerseyans over the next decade, 
leaving families unable to find care and doctors unable to provide it. 
Their plan will throw upwards of 465,000 low-income families and 
seniors off Medicaid, kick more than 70,000 young adults off their 
parents' health insurance, and leave more than 3 million New 
Jerseyans--including 877,000 children--worrying about whether they will 
hit their lifetime benefit limit and lose coverage as a result.
  For seniors, the Republican plan ends Medicare as we know it, leaving 
retirees to worry about whether the system they paid into their entire 
working lives will really be there for them when they need it. Their 
plan would force seniors out of the Medicare they know and instead 
provide an inadequate voucher they claim will cover the premiums for 
private insurance. That claim, however, is false, leaving seniors with 
an increase in out-of-pocket expenses of over $6,000 a year.
  It also means immediately higher costs for the more than 126,000 
seniors in New Jersey who have saved a combined $95 million on 
prescription drugs because every one of these Republican budgets will 
reopen the gap in prescription drug coverage we call the doughnut hole. 
The Republican budget also means 1 million seniors in New Jersey who 
have already accessed no-cost preventive health services, such as 
cancer screenings, would now be forced to pay for those screenings out 
of pocket. It also means 270,000 seniors and disabled individuals in my 
home State who rely on Medicaid for services such as long-term care 
will be kicked out of the system.
  The most shocking about all of this is the radical Ryan budget seems 
to be the least extreme of the Republican budgets. For example, Senator 
Paul's proposal calls for Medicare to end abruptly on January 1, 2014, 
while simultaneously decreasing Social Security benefits and raising 
the eligibility age to 70. Senator Toomey's plan would force seniors 
off Medicare and only provide a modest voucher to purchase private 
coverage. It would slash Medicaid by nearly $1 trillion--$180 billion 
more than even the Ryan budget calls for--and shift a massive and 
untenable burden on the States while leaving millions of families 
without coverage.
  How is that fair and balanced? It is not, and we should reject these 
proposals.
  Here is another fact about the Ryan House budget. Instead of making 
college more affordable, more accessible, and more achievable, the Ryan 
budget will do the exact opposite. It will create additional obstacles 
for students that could--according to a study by the Education Trust--
ultimately take Pell grants away from 1 million students. For those who 
aren't kicked out of the system entirely, it will freeze the maximum 
Pell Grant award, despite tuition costs rising far above the rate of 
inflation. To add insult to injury, the Ryan budget would allow the 
interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans to double--a debate that is 
all too familiar to this body.
  My Republican colleagues claim to support lower rates, but then they 
filibustered them, and now they are proposing a budget that would allow 
the interest rates to double. So for more than 60 percent of students 
who receive Pell grants while also taking out loans, the Ryan budget is 
a double whammy. Not only will they lose some or all of their Pell 
grants, they will be forced to pay double the interest on their loans, 
which will only increase with a reduction in Pell grants.
  Today receiving some form of higher education is almost a 
prerequisite for a 21st-century career. In fact, young adults with only 
a high school diploma

[[Page 6841]]

are almost three times as likely to be unemployed and earn just over 
half as much as those with a bachelor's degree.
  But even as the demand for college graduates in the workforce 
increases, so have the costs of tuition, making higher education all 
the more critical, as well as for the Nation to be the global leader 
competitively. Yet it is more out of reach for millions of students if 
we follow these plans. How is that fair? How is that balanced? It is 
not, and it just shows the misguided priorities that are behind these 
proposals.
  Middle-class families can't afford it. Seniors can't afford it. 
Students can't afford it. That is why we can't afford to let it happen.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, just to respond to my friend, the 
ranking member of the committee--and I have a lot of respect for the 
ranking member. The truth is on the larger issue we are not all that 
far apart. The larger issue is, as a nation, we are on an unsustainable 
course. This is as clear as it can be, and we have to deal with it. We 
have a difference with respect to what we have right now. I believe we 
do have a budget in place for this year and next year. The place where 
I would agree with the gentleman is we don't have the longer term plan.
  The problem is, Are we really going to get all sides to get off their 
fixed positions right before a national election? That is a matter of 
judgment. I don't believe that it is going to happen.
  I was part of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. In fact, Senator Gregg 
and I were the ones who got the Commission appointed, and he and I were 
2 of the 11--five Democrats, five Republicans, one Independent--who 
voted in favor of the long-term plan that Bowles-Simpson put before the 
American people that would have reduced the debt from what it would 
otherwise be by more than $4 trillion. Depending on what baseline you 
use, even more than that. That is the minimum we need to do.
  I actually tried to convince the Commission to do $5.6 trillion. That 
was my proposal to the Commission, a $5.6 trillion package of deficit 
reduction and debt reduction. Why did I pick that? We could balance the 
budget in 10 years if we did.
  But I do want to go back to this question about whether we have a 
budget right now, for this year. I say, with respect, I believe it is 
very clear we do. The Budget Control Act--not a budget resolution but a 
law--said very clearly the allocations, aggregates, and levels of 
spending shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012. That 
identical language follows for 2013.
  So pursuant to the Budget Control Act, in April I provided to the 
appropriators and the authorizers these budget allocations for 
appropriations: For security discretionary budget authority for 2013, 
$546 billion; for nonsecurity discretionary budget authority, $501 
billion. That is a total, on budget, of $1,040,000,000,954; mandatory 
spending, $815 billion, $671 billion, for a total of 
$1,862,671,000,000.
  Then to the authorizing committees, I went through some of these 
numbers previously. The Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, $13,397 
million; on entitlements for that same committee, $124,580 million; on 
Armed Services, $146,698 million; on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs, $22,167 million.
  Again, I could go through every committee, but there it is. The 
appropriations spending limits have been provided to the appropriators. 
The authorizing committees have been given their designations. So for 
this year and next, it is clear we have spending limits put in place. 
What we don't have is the longer term plan. That is where I would agree 
with the gentleman. The question is, Is there any prospect of the two 
sides coming together, getting off their fixed positions right now? I 
doubt that very much.
  Madam President, Senator Paul is here and he has this time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, we are currently borrowing $50,000 a 
second. We borrow $4 billion a day, and we are borrowing over $1 
trillion every year.
  The situation has gotten out of control, and I think the situation of 
our deficit and our country threatens our country. In fact, I think it 
is the No. 1 threat to our national security, and our security as a 
nation is this overwhelming burden of debt.
  Many economists have said this burden of debt is actually causing us 
to lose 1 million jobs a year. It crowds out private investment because 
we have to take care of financing this enormous debt.
  Amidst all of this, we have rules in place. There is a Budget Act 
that we have had in place since the 1970s that requires that this body 
put forward a budget. The problem is we have no budget and have had no 
budget for 3 years.
  Now, one would say: How can this be when we have a law that says the 
majority party has to have a budget, and yet we have no budget? They 
are in defiance of the law. Then if you were to come to us and say you 
want money spent on X item, we can't even do anything about it because 
there are no appropriations bills. If we don't have a budget, we don't 
have appropriations bills, and we can't alter up or down the 
appropriations bills because we don't have a budget to go by.
  In fact, every bit of spending we do here is in defiance of our own 
rules because we are supposed to compare the spending bills to the 
budget, and we have no budget.
  Many of us have been promoting something new--this would be a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution--because we don't seem to 
be doing a very good job balancing the budget. When you have less money 
coming in, you spend less money. Every American family has to do this. 
Why can't Washington simply spend what comes in? It shouldn't be that 
complicated. But they aren't obeying their own rules, so I think we 
need stronger rules. That would be an amendment to the Constitution 
that says we must balance the budget.
  We had a vote on it. Forty-seven of us on our side of the aisle voted 
for it, and no one on the other side voted for it. Our balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution would require that the budget balance 
within 5 years. In that vein, our office has put together a budget that 
does balance in 5 years, and it actually, over a 10-year period, would 
reduce the deficit by $2 trillion. Ours is the only budget that will 
balance in 5 years and begin paying down the debt over 10 years.
  Right now, Congress has an approval rating of 11 percent. Maybe that 
has something to do with the fact that we aren't doing our job. We 
aren't passing a budget, much less a balanced budget amendment. If 
people vote for our budget, we would balance in 5 years and begin 
paying down the debt. I think the stock market would be ecstatic to 
hear this.
  How do you do this? In order to balance the budget, we have to tackle 
entitlement reform. Currently, Social Security is $6.2 trillion short 
of money. The taxes people pay into Social Security are less than what 
we pay out. Social Security is essentially insolvent.
  You ask: Well, how come my check keeps coming?
  Your check will always keep coming. As the bankruptcy grows deeper 
and deeper, your checks will come--they won't buy anything. You are 
already seeing this at the pump. Gasoline prices have doubled. Is it 
because gas is more precious? No. It is because the value of the dollar 
is shrinking. The value of the dollar is shrinking because we print all 
this new money to pay for this massive debt. It is unsustainable, and 
one way or another it is going to come to a head.
  Will it come to a head through the destruction of our currency paying 
for this debt? I don't know, but we certainly need a budget. Ours will 
be a budget that balances in 5 years. People say: Why don't you 
compromise with the other side?
  We will, but they have to have a budget. If ours balances in 5 years 
and the other side will promote one that balances in 10, compromise 
would be 7\1/2\. But if the other side doesn't have a budget or if the 
other side has a budget--the President put forward a budget,

[[Page 6842]]

and we will vote on that too. His never balances. So we have infinity 
for their side, and we have 5 years on our side. How do we get halfway 
from infinity to 5 years?
  If we are going to compromise, they have to come to the table. We 
have to engage in a debate. Entitlements are 65 percent of the budget. 
They call it mandatory spending, and nobody wants to do anything about 
it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid is 65 percent of the budget. If 
we don't tackle entitlement reform, we can't fix it. We have a proposal 
on the table.
  Social Security reform, we fix Social Security. The way we fix it is 
we gradually let the age of eligibility rise to 70 over about 20 years, 
and we means-test the benefits--not on the current people but on the 
next wave. My generation will have to wait longer. Why? Is it because 
we want to change things? No. It is because we are living longer. We 
all have a longer life expectancy, and then we had smaller families. 
This isn't anybody's fault. It is not the Democrats' fault and it is 
not the Republicans' fault. We just had a bunch of large families born 
after World War II. They are all retiring, and each subsequent 
generation had less children. It is a demographic fact. Combine that 
with the fact that we are living longer, and we have to make changes.
  But we have a proposal on the table. We will fix Social Security. How 
do we compromise if the other side will not come up with a proposal?
  Social Security is $6 trillion in the hole. Medicare is $35 to $40 
trillion in the hole. We have a solution. We will give every senior 
citizen in the country the same health care plan I have. The same 
health care plan that every Senator and Congressman has, we are willing 
to give it to them. Do you know whose idea this was? Senator John Kerry 
from Massachusetts, a Democrat. We have taken his idea and put it 
forward, but we can't get anybody on that side to talk to us. They have 
given up. It is an election year. They are not going to do anything 
this year. They didn't do anything last year.
  So we haven't done anything to fix entitlements. We have done nothing 
to fix Social Security, nothing to fix Medicare. How do you compromise 
with a side that has no proposition, that won't put anything forward? 
But we have a 5-year plan that balances in 5 years, and we fix Social 
Security. We save Social Security in perpetuity--which, I laughingly 
say, is a long time.
  We also fix Medicare. We save Medicare. Medicare is facing a $35 to 
$40 trillion deficit, and we are willing to save it. But the other side 
has to come to the table, and nobody is showing up to debate these 
issues. No one is proposing any budget on the other side. No one is 
proposing any entitlement reform.
  In our budget we save Social Security, we save Medicare, and we go 
one step further. We have tax reform that would help the country and 
would make it fair.
  Some on the other side say, well, let's get rid of all those 
loopholes for special interests. We do it. We do a flat tax: 17 percent 
for all businesses, 17 percent for all personal. You get to deduct your 
kids and your house, and that is it. No other deductions. No other 
special interest exemptions. No other special credits for any special 
business or special enterprise. A flat 17 percent for everybody. We 
would see a boom in this country like we have never seen if we would do 
it.
  What would compromise be? Maybe the other side wants 25 percent, and 
I want 17 percent, and we go in the middle and we do 22 percent. That 
would be compromise. But how do we compromise with the other side when 
there is no budget? There is no entitlement reform proposed from the 
other side. There is no tax reform proposed from the other side. How do 
we compromise if there is no other side?
  If the other side has decided not to show up this year--if this year 
is going to be a waste of time and everybody is going to just run for 
office, maybe we shouldn't be paid this year. Maybe you shouldn't pay 
your Congressman, maybe you shouldn't pay your Senator this year if we 
are not going to have proposals from both sides.
  This means we should be talking about entitlement reform, talking 
about tax reform, talking about budgets, and there would be give-and-
take.
  The only way to get give-and-take in our country is people need to 
show up for the debate. We need to do our job. Why is there not a 
committee in Washington, not any committee--why is there not any 
committee meeting every day on how to fix Social Security? Nobody is 
talking about it. Why is there no committee discussing Medicare reform 
meeting every day, Republicans and Democrats, talking, figuring out a 
way out of this? There is no such committee.
  Why is there not a committee on tax reform, discussing how we could 
make our Tax Code simpler and make it easier for people to figure out 
and make the rates lower so we could spur the economy? Every time we 
have lowered tax rates, unemployment is cut in half. When we had an 
upper rate of 90 percent and Kennedy lowered it to 70 percent, 
unemployment was cut in half. When Reagan lowered the top rate from 70 
percent to 50 percent, unemployment was cut in half. When Reagan 
lowered it again from 50 to 28, unemployment was cut in half.
  But we as a country have to decide that we do not want to punish rich 
people, that we do not want to go out and punish corporations. We work 
for these people. We want them to do better. The oil and gas industry 
employs 9.2 million people and pays $86 million a day in taxes. We want 
them to do better. Let's not punish them with more taxes and 
regulations. Let's make their taxes lower and their regulatory burden 
lower so they can drill for more oil in our country and employ more 
people in our country. These are the decisions we have to make as we go 
forward.
  We have a budget that can balance in 5 years. It is what our country 
needs. I think people would react, and the marketplace in particular 
would react in a tremendous fashion if we would move forward and vote 
for a budget.
  The Republicans will have four or five budgets presented. Some of 
them balance in 5, some of them balance in 8, some of them balance in 
28. But we are at least trying. We are showing up and we are presenting 
budgets that would balance at some finite period of time. I tell people 
if it is never going to balance, it should not even be presented. If it 
is not going to balance in your lifetime--if you say it is going to 
balance in somebody else's lifetime when somebody else is going to be 
here in Congress--you have abdicated your responsibility. We can do 
better than this. The American people expect us to do better than this. 
The American people expect us to show up and do our job.
  We will today vote on these budgets. What I ask of the American 
people is: Look and see how your Representatives vote. Look and see how 
your Senators vote. Look and see whether your Senators believe in 
balancing the budget or if they think it doesn't matter; we will just 
print up more money.
  But realize if their answer is to print up more money, if their 
answer is deficits do not matter, if that is their answer, I want you 
to get mad and I want you to get angry and I want you to get even. 
Every time you go to the gas pump and pay $4 for gas I want you to know 
why gas prices are rising. Not because gas is more precious but because 
your dollar is less valuable, and that is because of the massive debt 
we run and the irresponsibility up here that nobody is willing to 
tackle it.
  There are some on our side willing to make the tough decisions. Is it 
easy to stand here and say to the people in Kentucky and the people in 
America that the only way to save Social Security is letting the age of 
eligibility rise? Do you think that is popular? Do you think I am 
saying that to pander and try to get votes? I am saying that is because 
it is the only thing that is going to save Social Security, the only 
thing that will save our country, is we have to make difficult 
decisions. I think that is what needs to happen.
  People need to say: Are you willing to make the tough decisions? Are 
you willing to stand up and say this is how we would fix Social 
Security; this is how we would save the system; this is how we would 
correct this deficit that is dragging us all down?
  One side is willing to do that. I am willing to do that and I hope my 
fellow

[[Page 6843]]

Senators will today consider voting to balance the budget.
  I yield my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we are waiting for a number of Senators 
who have sought time. They will be coming to the floor and we will hear 
from them momentarily.
  Let me say Senator Paul is sincere. One place I agree with him is 
that the country has to face up to our deficit and debt situation. As I 
indicated earlier, I was part of the Simpson-Bowles commission. We 
agreed to, and voted on, significant reforms, spending cuts, but we 
also used some additional revenue to have a balanced plan.
  I believe that has to be the test for any of the proposals that are 
made here. As I see the proposals coming from our Republican colleague, 
they flunk that test because they are not balanced. There is nothing on 
the revenue side. In fact, in all of their plans, there are deep 
additional tax cuts aimed at the wealthiest among us. None of the 
Republican plans have less than a $150,000 tax cut, on average, for 
people with earnings of over $1 million a year.
  Senator Paul's plan is truly radical. He didn't mention a lot of the 
elements, but his plan includes massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 
among us. He scraps the entire tax system and goes to a 17-percent flat 
tax. That is a massive tax cut for those of us who have higher income--
massive tax cut. I can tell you it would be a massive tax cut for my 
family.
  He also cuts discretionary spending, education, and energy, by huge 
amounts. I will go into that in a bit. He cuts health care by almost $4 
trillion.
  He replaces the current progressive system with a 17-percent flat 
tax. He eliminates the estate tax--eliminates it. He eliminates taxes 
on capital gains and dividends--eliminates them. My goodness, think 
about what that would mean. People such as Warren Buffett would pay 
almost nothing in taxes. The richest people among us would pay almost 
nothing in taxes, because he eliminates taxes on capital gains and 
dividends.
  But he is not so generous when it comes to lower income people. He 
raises taxes on lower income people by ending the earned-income tax 
credit and the child tax credit. He eliminates it.
  Perhaps most stunning, his answer to saving Social Security is to cut 
the benefits 39 percent. The plan does not include a dime of revenue 
for Social Security. That is what Senator Paul has before this body. 
Really? Is that what we should do? Massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 
among us and make up for it by cutting Social Security benefits 39 
percent. That is the Paul plan. He increases the retirement age three 
times faster than the Fiscal Commission plan and he shifts to something 
he calls ``progressive indexing'' for those earning above $33,000, 
which cuts their benefits even deeper over time.
  I respect his desire to do something about deficits and debt, but the 
answer is not massive tax cuts. Eliminate the estate tax? Eliminate 
capital gains taxation? No taxes--wow. Warren Buffett should send him a 
thank-you letter. And cut Social Security 39 percent?
  I can go into the other details. He cuts energy dramatically. He cuts 
education. What is his education cut? I think we have it there. We will 
go into the specifics of the massive cuts so we can have more tax cuts 
for the wealthiest among us, trillions of dollars, and then cut Social 
Security 39 percent. That is breathtaking. We will see how many 
colleagues are going to stand up and support that in a vote later 
today.
  Senator Durbin is here. I thank him very much for his involvement. He 
has not only served on the Simpson-Bowles commission but also served on 
the group of six and has spent literally hundreds of hours trying to 
find a way on a bipartisan basis working together to come up with a 
plan that is balanced and fair, to get us back on the track and save 
trillions of dollars on the debt. I applaud him for it. He has shown 
enormous courage and also extraordinary energy trying to get our 
country back on track.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank Senator Conrad. Let me say the 
retirement of Senator Conrad from North Dakota is a great loss to the 
Senate and to the Nation. We have only six or seven months left to do 
something significant. It will be easier to do it when Kent Conrad is 
working with us. I hope we can achieve it.
  I also want to say for those who have come to the floor over and over 
to say it is time for a budget resolution, it bears repeating that we 
passed the Budget Control Act, which is a law. A resolution is just 
that, a resolution passed by the House and Senate, recommending our 
spending levels. A budget law passed by Congress, signed by the 
President, has the force of law and it in fact is going to determine 
our spending levels for the next year. The people who come to the floor 
and say isn't it about time we had a budget resolution so we knew what 
we were going to spend next year--we do. We passed it on a bipartisan 
basis. In fact, the Republican Senate leader voted for it, so it was 
not as though it wasn't a bipartisan effort, it was all the way, and 
the President signed it and it guides our spending.
  Let me speak for a moment about those ``thrilling days of 
yesteryear,'' as they used to say on the old radio serial, going back 
to 2001, if you can stick with me for a minute. That was the last time 
the United States of America had a balanced budget. Who was President 
at the time? It was President Clinton, who left that budget for 
President Bush. That represented, I think, two or three successive 
years of balanced budgets.
  I said to my staff: Take a look at the last time our budget was in 
balance, take a look at today, and compare spending and revenue between 
those two periods of time. I think the Senator from North Dakota told 
me once something like 19.6 percent of GDP in that year of balance was 
being spent, 19.6 percent was being raised in revenue, and there was 
the balance.
  Now we have drifted to the point where I think spending is around 24 
percent, is that close? And the actual revenue is down to 14 percent. 
The 10-percent delta equals the deficit.
  But in specifics, what has happened in that period of time? Thanks to 
Senator Inouye, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, here is a 
chart which tells the story. The blue line, of course, this bar, 
represents the spending and revenue in fiscal year 2001, the last time 
we had a balanced budget, and the red bar represents fiscal year 2012. 
I asked them to compare it and here is what we found. The security in 
there represents, of course, military spending, primarily military 
spending. In the period of time we were last in balance until today we 
have seen roughly a 60-percent increase in military spending--
understandable, two wars, all the buildup that has been part of it--OK? 
A 60-percent increase.
  Now let's take a look at nondefense spending. That would be 
everything from medical research, building highways or helping to build 
highways, education, basic health care. What has happened in real 
dollars since we were last in balance in that nonsecurity discretionary 
spending? Flat. Zero increase. But if you listen to the debate over the 
last 2 years here, you would think it was all the increase--all the 
increase we have seen in our deficit is attributable to these 
nonsecurity programs. Those are the ones we have been cutting away at. 
I think they represent 12 percent of the budget. We keep cutting away 
all these nondefense programs but they have not added to our deficit 
since we last were in balance.
  Now look at mandatory programs. Mandatory programs, obviously 
Medicare and programs such as that, have seen an increase of about 30 
percent because yesterday 10,000 Americans reached the age of 65, today 
10,00 more, and tomorrow 10,000 more, and for the next 18 years 10,000 
a day. Boomers have arrived. After paying into Social Security and 
Medicare for a lifetime they walk up to the window and say now it is my 
turn. It is understandable.

[[Page 6844]]

  The demographics are growing for those who are covered by these 
mandatory programs, and the costs have been growing right along with 
them--a 30-percent increase.
  Take a look at revenues, compared with when we were last in balance. 
Revenues have gone down 13 percent. Senator Conrad and I were on the 
Bowles-Simpson commission and 18 of us sat there for a year-plus and 
listened to all this testimony about everything. Here is where we came 
down. He and I both voted for it. We believe the premise of the 
Simpson-Bowles commission is the right premise--everything must be on 
the table. Everything.
  What do you mean by everything? Spending cuts must be on the table, 
both on the defense side and the nondefense side. In addition, we have 
to put the entitlement programs on the table. My friends, we cannot 
ignore this conversation. We are 11 or 12 years away from Medicare 
going bankrupt. We have to have a serious conversation about this, and 
we have to look seriously at the question of revenue.
  We cannot ignore the fact that we have seen a decline in the revenue 
coming into the Federal Government since we last had a budget 
imbalance. We have to put all that on the table. I added another part 
that fits right into the revenue conversation, the Tax Code. This is 
not Holy Writ. The Tax Code is a compilation of laws passed over a long 
period of time that takes about $1.2 trillion out of the Treasury every 
year for deductions and credits and exclusions and special treatment.
  They asked us at one of these meetings about the Tax Code: What do 
you think is the most expensive provision in the Tax Code that takes 
the most money out of the Treasury? I said, mortgage interest for sure. 
Wrong. The most expensive is the employers' exclusion of health 
insurance premiums. So imagine when we get into the debate about tax 
reform and the first item up is the biggest item up, employers' 
exclusion of health insurance premiums. Imagine that conversation. If 
we say your employer can no longer take the full deduction, what does 
it mean to you as an employee in terms of your out-of-pocket expense, 
in terms of your health insurance coverage? So I am not going to 
suggest tax reform is an easy exercise. It is hard, but it has to be 
part of the conversation.
  Here is where we come down: We are having an exercise today, which is 
not worthless, it is important. It is an exercise in discussing the 
budget. What Senator Conrad has spelled out are different visions of 
things. What we find coming from the other side of the aisle is 
primarily talk about more tax cuts--particularly for the higher income 
people--in the belief that that is how you spark an economy and get it 
to go. I disagree with that premise. I think the way to move this 
forward is for working families and middle-income families to have more 
spending power. I don't believe we can give more money to the richest 
people in America and expect the economy to take off.
  Also we find that many of the entitlement programs, which have now 
become critical safety net programs, are victims of the budget 
resolutions that come to the floor. I cannot imagine what life would be 
like for 40 million Americans on Social Security with a 39-percent 
cut--as Senator Paul suggested--in Social Security benefits. Too many 
of these people are living on their Social Security checks and barely 
getting by. A 39-percent cut is cruel and unrealistic. I don't think it 
is going anywhere. And the notion from others that we can keep cutting 
taxes from the highest income categories, let me say, we will never 
balance the budget doing it. Never. If we don't balance the budget, we 
could jeopardize our economic recovery.
  We have a cliff we are going to face on December 31. It is a big 
deal. I cannot remember a time when I have been in the House or Senate 
when so many things are going to happen in one day. But on December 31, 
all of the Bush tax cuts expire on the highest income levels as well as 
the lower and middle-income levels. For example, I think the 10-percent 
tax rate goes away, and the child tax credit is cut in half. All of 
these things mean more taxes for every American paying into income tax.
  Secondly, we are going to see the end of the payroll tax cut--the 2-
percent cut we have had for 2 years that the President put in place.
  I could go through the litany. The bottom line is this: We need to 
start that honest conversation about the deficit now, and we need to 
put something on the table ready to be discussed. The group of eight--
there are four Democrats and four Republicans--has been meeting for a 
long time. We are trying to put together a bill, something that could 
actually become law. I don't think it is the last word, but it may be 
the first word in the debate. If we cannot get anything done before the 
election, let's hope that the day after the election we can put this on 
the table and say: Here is our starting point. Let's solve the problem 
on a bipartisan basis, put everything on the table, and do it in a 
thoughtful, balanced way.
  I think that is what the American people are looking for. They really 
are. They are beyond the charades of: Oh, this won't touch me, let's 
hit somebody else. I think everybody realizes we are in the soup 
together. If we come out of this together, think about where we will be 
as other Nations around the world are struggling to survive 
economically. I could go through the list in Europe, but we know it 
well. We don't want to put ourselves even close to that position.
  The debt ceiling expires December 31, or soon thereafter. If we do 
not renew the debt ceiling, America will have defaulted on its debt for 
the first time in history. That is totally irresponsible. It is an 
invitation for the downgrading of our credit rating and the upgrading 
of the interest rates we pay and the upgrading of the deficit we owe. I 
hope the statements made by the House Speaker in the last couple of 
days don't reflect the position of his party when it comes to the debt 
ceiling. That would be a totally irresponsible act in terms of our 
economy.
  I will join Senator Conrad today in voting against the budget 
resolution that has come to the floor. But I will say this: I am glad 
we are having this conversation. We need to have more of them, and we 
need to have a bipartisan effort with both parties to make sure we deal 
with the current spending in a responsible way. And equally important, 
we need to find a way to get past the December 31 cliff in a way that 
will build the economy and not take away from it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator for his leadership and the 
extraordinary effort he has made to get us back on track. I thank him 
for supporting Simpson-Bowles and the group of six that is now the 
group of eight. Senator Durbin has spent hundreds of hours in good-
faith negotiations to bring both sides together so we actually get a 
result and not the political charade that so often goes on around here, 
but serious solutions to serious problems.
  Senator Wyden is a very valuable member of the Budget Committee and 
is here on the floor. No Senator has proposed more serious solutions to 
America's problems than Senator Wyden, and he has done it without the 
benefit of having a committee staff that he controls. He does it based 
on his own hard work and the work of his office staff. He has proposed 
major tax reform, major health care reform, and he has done it in a 
bipartisan way. In many ways, I think he has set an example for 
everybody in this Chamber.
  How much time does the Senator need?
  Mr. WYDEN. Approximately 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, without turning this into a bouquet-tossing 
contest, I want Senator Conrad to know how much I appreciate his 
leadership. I also want to make sure people understand the record. If 
the Congress had passed the bipartisan proposal the Senator put 
together on the budget with Senator Judd Gregg, the Conrad-Gregg 
proposal--a Democrat joined with a Republican--in 2010 we could have 
forced an actual effort to put together a comprehensive tax reform and

[[Page 6845]]

spending agreement. As we know--and I don't need to go over the 
history--some of the sponsors of the proposal were not even willing to 
go along. But I think it is important that the country understand we 
have to do this in a bipartisan way. If Senator Conrad and Senator Judd 
Gregg had prevailed in 2010, we could have forced actual spending 
reductions and tax reform in a bipartisan effort. I sure wish we had 
proceeded with it. And as one who supported it, I still think that 
would have been preferable.
  For 7 years before being elected to the Congress, I had the honor of 
serving senior citizens. I ran the Senior Citizens Legal Aid Office, I 
served as the public advocate on our State's nursing home board, and I 
taught gerontology at several of our universities.
  What I enjoyed most was the personal contact I had with senior 
citizens as a voluntary board member of our senior nutrition program. 
It is known as Loaves and Fishes, and through it I could bring meals to 
seniors at their homes on a number of occasions as part of the Meals on 
Wheels Program. Meals on Wheels is one part of government that truly 
understands the connection between the heart and the head. It touches 
the heart because I saw when we bring a nutritious meal to seniors, we 
can spend time visiting with them at home. Often they will tell us that 
we are the only visitor they will have during that day. It causes us to 
use our head and a sharp pencil. We can see without Meals on Wheels, as 
sure as the night follows the day, some of those seniors are not going 
to be able to stay in the community. They will end up needing 
institutional services, and those services are more costly. And, of 
course, seniors will often be less happy with those kinds of 
institutional programs.
  I bring up Meals on Wheels today because several of the proposals 
that are offered by colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not 
going to be bipartisan because they substantially cut the part of the 
budget that funds Meals on Wheels. Through our research we specifically 
found that in several instances it will be between 17 and 59 percent in 
just the upcoming year.
  Putting Meals on Wheels at risk like that defies common sense. I have 
already indicated from a compassion standpoint alone it warrants 
support. But even if Meals on Wheels doesn't grab your heart the way it 
does for me, it certainly ought to get the attention of your head 
because it is the kind of program that lets seniors have more of what 
they want, which is to be at home at less price to the taxpayers. It 
defies common sense to not be bipartisan in terms of approaching 
something like Meals on Wheels.
  I think what is common sense is what Chairman Conrad and other 
colleagues have touched on, and that is tackling the big issues in a 
bipartisan way. Certainly when it comes to Medicare, that is what is 
needed. I would only say, having worked in this area, we ought to start 
with the fact that we are looking at--I am not the first to describe 
this--a demographic tsunami. For the next 20 years we are going to have 
10,000 seniors turning 65 every single day--10,000 seniors turning 65 
every single day.
  Fortunately, we have made a commitment in this country to those 
senior citizens, and it is called the Medicare guarantee. That is the 
commitment we have made to older people. It is a commitment to good 
quality, affordable health care. And if absolutely nothing is done, it 
is a commitment at risk. If nothing is done, the Medicare guarantee is 
in peril. My own sense is that if nothing is done, Medicare--as Senator 
Conrad pointed out, it is already facing cuts with sequestration--will 
face a steady diet of benefit cuts and cost shifting until we do not 
recognize the Medicare guarantee as it stands today. That is 
unacceptable to me. It ought to be unacceptable to every Member of the 
Senate.
  As Chairman Conrad has noted, Medicare reform is going to have to be 
bipartisan. The reason I believe that is that if it is not, much like 
we saw with health care reform, if it is done on a partisan vote, as 
soon as the ink is dry on the signature of the passed bill, the other 
side will move to undo it or repeal it or radically alter it. I say the 
Medicare guarantee is too important for that, and that is why I, with 
other colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the help of the 
chairman, have been working to get bipartisan Medicare reform ready and 
teed up for enactment at the first possible opportunity. It is outlined 
on my Web site, Bipartisan Options for Reform. I am interested in 
working with every colleague here in the Senate to pursue it.
  Here is what it is going to take: First and foremost, it will protect 
the most vulnerable seniors, what are called the dual eligibles, which 
are seniors who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. The 
protections for those dual eligibles must be ironclad.
  Unfortunately, a number of the offerings we are going to see from 
colleagues on the other side do not ensure ironclad protections for 
these vulnerable seniors--the dual eligibles--and by block-granting 
Medicaid, they put at risk the most vulnerable seniors, the seniors who 
need nursing home care that is paid for by Medicaid, and since Medicaid 
is a Federal-State program, by block-granting it, we put at risk the 
most vulnerable seniors. That is certainly not in line with what people 
will see on my Web site that outlines bipartisan approaches on which 
Democrats and Republicans can come together for Medicare reform.
  The second part of Medicare reform is to ensure that we protect 
traditional Medicare. Traditional Medicare mandates that the government 
pay doctors and other providers for services, as well as providing 
private sector choices that have to offer coverage that is at least as 
good as traditional Medicare. By doing that, we force traditional 
Medicare and the private choices to hold each other accountable. It is 
going to be pretty hard to protect traditional Medicare and its 
purchasing power with some of what we are going to see later this 
afternoon that actually proposes to end traditional Medicare within the 
space of 2 years.
  Third, Medicare reform--and we went into this in a very good hearing 
that was held in Chairman Conrad's Budget Committee--is going to 
require comprehensive consumer protection. I have been involved in this 
since the days when I would go visit senior citizens and they would 
bring out a shoe box full of health insurance policies that weren't 
worth the paper on which they were written. It was a Medigap scandal 
that we finally fixed in 1990. I have seen how these rip-off artists 
try to exploit our seniors. So at Chairman Conrad's hearing we talked 
about comprehensive consumer protections and specifically ensuring that 
any Medicare reform would have to have a strong risk-adjustment program 
so that if, for example, any network of health care providers or an 
insurer took mostly healthy people, their contribution from the 
government would be far less than the contribution that would be 
afforded for a program that took a greater number of older people with 
health challenges.
  So I bring this up only by way of saying I am committed to bipartisan 
Medicare reform. I think Medicare is really sacred ground. It can only 
be preserved and protected by ensuring that we take the steps I have 
just outlined--three or four of them this afternoon--which ensure that 
we put seniors and their well-being before ideology and politics. This 
afternoon we are going to hear several alternatives offered by 
colleagues from the other side of the aisle that, in my view, don't do 
that, don't meet that test. In effect, we are going to be dealing with 
ideology rather than the kinds of principles I have outlined here today 
that I think can win support from colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
and that people can see on my own Web site have attracted the support 
of influential Republican voices.
  So we have a test to meet. It is a test that builds on a bipartisan 
approach to a program that is sacred--I ask unanimous consent for 1 
additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. --and that is built around a Medicare guarantee that must 
be protected and preserved. A number of the proposals we will get from 
the other side this afternoon don't meet that test.

[[Page 6846]]

  I want colleagues to know that I am committed to working with them to 
produce what America wants in this Congress; that is, bipartisan 
Medicare reform that ensures that this very special program prospers in 
the days ahead. We are up to it. We are up to it if we build on the 
bipartisan example Senator Conrad started years ago with Senator Gregg.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. I thank him for the extraordinary 
work he has done on the Budget Committee. I thank him for the 
extraordinary work he has done as an individual Senator to propose 
bipartisan tax reform, bipartisan Medicare reform, and the kinds of 
thoughtful solutions we so desperately need.
  I see Senator Lautenberg is here. We are glad to have the Senator. 
How much time would the Senator like?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask for recognition from the 
Presiding Officer to move ahead with my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to inform the Senator from New 
Jersey that Senator Alexander is scheduled to be here at 12:30 or 
thereabouts, so if the Senator could consume about that amount of time, 
we can make this all work.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We will give the Senator a good greeting.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, one thing we know is that a budget 
isn't just a collection of numbers, it is an expression of principles 
and priorities and direction.
  While I have the floor, I will take a moment to say to our friend and 
colleague from North Dakota that he has been one of the strongest 
chiefs of the Budget Committee. I sat on the Budget Committee for a 
long time. I think it is fair to say, Republican or Democrat, the 
Senator from North Dakota deserves the thanks and respect from 
everybody here for the detail and for the arduous task he took on to 
make sure our budgets were clear. No matter how often the challenges 
came, Senator Conrad would stand and give the background and give the 
details that got him to a point of view, and we are grateful, and we 
will certainly miss his presence here.
  The budgets the Republicans have put forward today confirm their true 
priorities.
  I had a good business career before coming to the Senate, and I 
remember that during the Second World War we raised taxes on high 
incomes and on excess profits because the country needed the revenues. 
We needed to make investments.
  Again, the budgets the Republicans have put forward today confirm 
their true priorities. What are they? They really are pushing, working 
hard to make sure people who make millions can get tax breaks. It is a 
little hard to understand, with the shortages we have and needing to 
invest in more programs, that they are worried about those who make 
more than $1 million a year. I have had a good business career, and I 
want to make sure our country is strong, and I want to make sure my 
contribution is included among those who should be paying.
  What Republicans do not seem to care about in their budgeting is 
seniors, children, and middle-class Americans. At a time when our 
economy is fighting against strong headwinds and too many Americans are 
out of work, the Republicans are offering the same old prescriptions: 
tax cuts for the rich and austerity for everyone else.
  Now, I have seen this country of ours through adversity many times, 
and I have seen it come out stronger on the other side. But our 
recoveries have never been spurred by starving the middle class while 
giving tax breaks to the wealthy. Prosperity has never trickled down 
from the wealthy few. Prosperity has always grown up from a broad 
middle class. We can't build a building starting with a chimney, and we 
can't build a society's strength by starting from the top. It has to 
have a foundation at the bottom that is strong and has the ability to 
support the needs of our total society.
  But a strong middle class depends on a first-rate educational 
system--and forgive the personal annotation here for a moment more. 
When I got out of the Army--I was a high school graduate. I enlisted 
when I was 18, and I was lucky. I was able to get an education paid for 
by the government. I was one of 8 million soldiers--service people--who 
got our education paid for virtually because of the fact that we had 
served in the military. As a result, half of those who were in 
uniform--8 million out of 16 million--got a college education.
  I can tell my colleagues that it enabled me, working with two 
colleagues, to start a company that the three of us founded, a company 
that took years and years to build. Slowly and energetically it began 
to develop. Today that company produces the labor statistics every 
month for the worldwide knowledge of what is happening with working 
people, what their wages are, what employment is like. The name of the 
company is ADP. We have 50,000 employees now. We were three poor boys 
with nothing going for us except the willingness to work hard, and that 
is the value. What did we get? It was determined that was the greatest 
generation. Why? Because an education was given to so many who could 
learn but didn't have the ability to get to college.
  What we need is a society with affordable and accessible health care 
and a tax system where everyone pays their fair share.
  The Republican budgets include vicious cuts to the middle class. Just 
look at what they do to education. They slash funding for education by 
$19 billion. They want to do that now when we desperately need the 
skills and the knowledge that education brings and the opportunity for 
invention and creation. They want to take away $19 billion. That is not 
going to help us get out of the hole we are in.
  The Ryan budget coming from the House of Representatives would cut 
education, as I pointed out, by $19 billion. They don't want us to see 
the specific programs they cut, but let's look at the devastating 
consequences if their cuts were distributed evenly.
  I don't know whether Head Start is a familiar operation in our 
country, but it is one of the most valuable. I believe there are about 
a million children who participate in the program. Look at the face of 
this child, looking through a narrow prism. There are 200,000 of these 
children who will be told: Stay home. There is no room for you. We 
can't afford to pay for you.
  I recently went to a Head Start school in New Jersey and I met the 
children. I am such a professional grandfather that all little kids 
look beautiful to me. I met the children. What they were learning was 
that learning is fun. Words mean something. Pictures mean something. 
They were prepared, when they got to kindergarten or first grade, to 
say that learning is good.
  I met a child there. The children lined up to greet me. This is a 
school that is bilingual.
  I said: What is your name?
  The little boy standing in front of me said: My name is Julio.
  So I put my hand out to shake his hand, and he pushed it aside and 
instead he wrapped his arms around my legs and gave me a hug. All the 
little kids who followed thought he was the leader, so they all gave me 
hugs. It was one of the best days I have had, to see what happens when 
we treat these little kids to an opportunity to learn. Imagine slashing 
funding for a program that will help children learn how to learn.
  These cuts are shortsighted. They are cruel. Ten million college 
students could see their Pell grants cut by more than $1,000 in 2014--
very painful.
  With less support and rising costs for higher education, young people 
would be forced to take on more debt in order to attend college because 
we see college tuition is going up rapidly across the country.
  The Republican budgets address student debt too. They would let the 
interest rate on the new student loans double, increase by twice. It is 
an outrage. Why are Republicans putting obstacles in front of young 
people seeking

[[Page 6847]]

an education? I never would have been able to attend, as I said, 
Columbia University without that government help for me and the 
services that ADP provides. It enabled me to cofound one of America's 
most successful companies. The investment this country made when we 
came home from World War II helped to create the momentum and direction 
of this country with decades of prosperity.
  But instead of offering a helping hand to this generation of 
students, the Republican proposals close the door in their faces. 
Government investments in science, technology, and medical research are 
cut by more than $100 billion over the next 10 years. Medical research 
funding alone could take a hit of nearly $6 billion by 2014.
  What does that do? It delays research on new treatments for diseases 
such as cancer, childhood asthma, and juvenile diabetes. Imagine 
telling a parent of a sick child that we could not help find the money 
to help him get back with his friends out in the play yard or the 
schoolroom or going to school on a regular basis. Is that where America 
wants to be? Right now we are finding across the country that there is 
a greater likelihood that autism will enter into a family's 
difficulties with a child being born with autism. How can we say no 
when we see, in my State alone, that 1 in 29 male babies has autism? 
That is a plague. That is a terrible statistic.
  Then we want to talk about cutting back on health research? In their 
budgets, instead of helping seniors retire with dignity, Republicans 
have proposed to end Medicare as we know it, giving seniors a voucher 
instead of guaranteed care. If that voucher cannot cover the cost of 
needed medical services, Republicans say: Hey, too bad; you are on your 
own. We have heard comments from them saying: Well, so what if you are 
poor. It does not matter.
  I look at this chart that says: ``Ends Medicare As We Know It To 
Provide Tax Cuts For The Wealthy.'' They want to say that to people who 
need the care, who are fortunate enough now under present conditions to 
be able to have long-term care with a disease that is terminal.
  The Republican plan would also cut Medicaid. Medicaid is a program 
for those less able to provide for themselves because of low income or 
no income. The Republican plans also want to cut that by more than $800 
billion over 10 years. Medicaid provides vital resources such as 
pregnancy services for expectant mothers and nursing home care for 
seniors.
  We created Medicare and Medicaid because it was decided in this 
country as a society that we have to be there for seniors and the poor 
when they get sick. But now the Republicans are proposing to break that 
promise. They seem to do it without shame.
  Republicans are not even exempting the hungry from their cuts. They 
would eliminate food stamps for up to 10 million Americans over the 
next decade.
  In their obsession with austerity, they cut through far more than the 
fat in the budget. They cut into the bone.
  Many on the other side--and I do not say all; a lot of people on the 
other side are good people concerned about their constituents, 
concerned about what happens--but many on that side say balancing the 
budget is the mission, the only mission. And in order to do it, they 
want to make sure that includes a high priority for tax breaks for the 
millionaires.
  We could reduce our deficit if we required the wealthiest among us to 
pay at least the same tax rate as middle-class Americans on all of 
their income. But, instead, a Republican budget would give millionaires 
an average tax cut of almost $400,000 a year. Their plan shreds the 
safety net for seniors and the poor while padding the mattress for the 
rich.
  I ask my colleagues, please get your priorities straight. America 
needs your help across the board. Your families, your neighbors, your 
State, all need your help. Millionaires do not need more tax cuts, and 
they certainly should not get them at the expense of seniors, children, 
and the middle class.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  Senator Alexander is next. I wonder if we could enter into a quick 
time agreement to get the next Senators slotted. That might help us 
manage the floor, I would say to my colleague, Senator Sessions.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Right. I believe Senator Toomey is here and would be 
prepared to go next after Senator Alexander.
  Mr. CONRAD. We have Senator Reed slotted in between.
  I wonder if we could propose--I say to Senator Alexander, how much 
time would you like?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, Mr. President, what I wish to request is--
Senator Coons and I were hoping to introduce a piece of legislation on 
another matter and talk about it. I think, given the focus on the 
budget here, I am going to suggest to Senator Coons, who will be coming 
here at 12:45, that we just mention our bill. If he could have time to 
do that, and then we would stay focused on the budget, and we will talk 
about the other matter tomorrow.
  So what I wish to do, if I may suggest, is ask that I have 5 minutes 
to speak on the budget and maybe 5 minutes to speak on the other 
matter, for Senator Coons to be recognized for 5 minutes, and that 
would take all of the time I would ask for.
  Mr. CONRAD. The problem is, we are oversubscribed by that. It is 
difficult to--we have not been yielding for things that are not budget 
related, I would say to the Senator. So I wonder if it would be 
agreeable if the Senator would take 5 minutes on the budget, we come 
back to Senator Reed, if he could take 5 minutes on the budget, and 
then we go to Senator Toomey for 15 minutes on the budget because he 
has a substantive budget alternative that deserves additional time.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I think that is a reasonable request. I 
wonder if I might ask on behalf of Senator Coons that if he should come 
to the floor during that period, he be recognized for 1 minute to 
simply stand up and say he was planning to do this, but we will defer 
the introduction of our bill until tomorrow out of respect for the 
budget discussion.
  Mr. CONRAD. I appreciate that very much.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander be 
recognized for 5 minutes on the budget, Senator Reed of Rhode Island 
for 5 minutes on the budget, then Senator Toomey for 15 minutes on the 
budget, and if Senator Coons comes after that point he be recognized 
for a minute on a separate matter, and then we come back to Senator 
Whitehouse for 8 minutes. If we could lock those in I think that would 
help all Members.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, am I now recognized for 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President. Please let me know when 30 
seconds is remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.


                      Foreign Student Legislation

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Senator Coons will come to the floor in 
a few minutes. He and I have been working together on legislation that 
many Senators on both sides of the aisle support.
  Very simply, it pins a green card on the lapel of any foreign student 
who is involved in science, engineering, technology graduate programs 
who gets a degree and who wants to stay in the United States and work. 
What we would like for them to do, instead of going home to create the 
next Google in India or China or some other country, is to stay here 
and create it here.
  The legislation has broad support. It is a recommendation of the 
American Competes Act which I worked on and many others did in 2005 and 
2007. We will come to the floor and talk about that tomorrow. But I 
wanted to salute Senator Coons for his leadership on this issue and 
recognize it.
  Now I will turn to the budget with my remaining time.

[[Page 6848]]

  Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently said the 
worst mistake President Obama made was not embracing his own fiscal 
commission's recommendations to reduce our debt by $4 trillion over the 
next 10 years.
  Today, our national debt is more than $15.6 trillion, which is nearly 
$1.9 trillion higher than it was when the fiscal commission released 
its recommendations and $6.4 trillion higher than when President Obama 
was sworn in. In January 2013, the first thing the next President will 
have to do is to ask the Congress to increase the debt ceiling. The 
fundamental problem is that Washington does not know how to balance its 
checkbook.
  The President has proposed a budget that raises taxes by $1.9 
trillion over the next 10 years and still spends more than it takes in 
every year, instead of endorsing the fiscal commission's 
recommendations--or any other plan to address our Nation's fiscal 
crisis. According to the Congressional Budget Office, under the 
President's budget, interest on our debt will triple over the next 10 
years, and by 2022 we will be spending more in interest than we spend 
on national defense.
  This is an irresponsible proposal, and instead of playing politics we 
should be working together on a plan to address the debt, which is the 
most urgent problem facing our country and, according to former 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, the biggest 
threat to our national security.
  The Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission plan, the Domenici-Rivlin plan, 
and the Gang of Six proposal all offer bipartisan blueprints for how to 
address it. Each of these proposals would reform the Tax Code and 
restructure entitlement spending--the main source of our dangerous 
Federal debt--so that seniors can count on Medicare and Social Security 
and taxpayers can afford them.
  Mandatory entitlement spending, which is 58 percent of the Federal 
budget, is growing at nearly 3 times inflation and bankrupting our 
country. Discretionary spending, which funds our national defense, our 
highways, our national parks, and National Laboratories, is only 36 
percent of the Federal budget and is growing at the rate of inflation. 
Focusing our budget cutting on discretionary spending is just a way for 
Congress--to use the President's words--to kick the can down the road. 
The real work is reducing the growth of mandatory spending.
  Although the Senate is not debating its own budget resolution, going 
1,113 days without passing a budget, we are debating several proposals. 
I do not agree with every one of these, but I do support the House-
passed budget because it is a serious proposal to cut out-of-control 
spending and help solve our fiscal crisis.
  I will also support the proposal offered by Senator Toomey. Even 
though it cuts nondefense discretionary spending to 2006 levels, which 
I believe is too low, it reforms mandatory entitlement spending, it 
closes tax loopholes, it lowers tax rates, and it would save Medicare 
for future generations.
  Senator Toomey and I have also discussed the possibility of allowing 
States to have the option of choosing per capita caps on their average 
Medicaid expenditures per beneficiary as an alternative to traditional 
block grants, and I am encouraged by these discussions.
  Last August, I supported the Budget Control Act because it was an 
opportunity to take an important step in the right direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The House-passed budget and the budget proposed by Senator Toomey are 
opportunities to take the next step after the Budget Control Act. I 
look forward to working with them to adopt a responsible budget that 
grows the economy and reduces our debt.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                         Student Loan Interest

  Mr. REED. In 46 days, the interest rate on subsidized student loans 
will be doubled. Zeroing in on these budgets that are before us, all of 
them seem to support the essence of the Ryan budget, which is to allow 
this to happen. In fact, the Ryan budget in the House not only allowed 
a doubling of student interest rates, it also recommended eliminating 
the in-school interest subsidies for student loans, putting middle-
class families at a particularly severe disadvantage.
  We have 46 days to stop this increase on the interest charges to 
middle-income students. We have to act. We have seen denial, delay, and 
disruption. We have not seen the cooperation we need to help students 
and families throughout this country.
  The budget before us not only allows this interest rate to double, 
but it will also, through its tax policies, favor the wealthiest and 
not those who are struggling in the middle simply to get ahead or 
simply to stay where they are. One of the other interesting aspects of 
the proposal is that as we look at this student rate interest doubling, 
my colleagues on the other side have said: We will fix it. We are for 
fixing it. But, again, ask yourself: If they are for it, why are they 
voting for several budgets today that would, in fact, support the 
doubling? It seems to be an incongruity I cannot understand.
  In addition to that, they said: Well, if we are going to go ahead and 
stop this doubling of the rate, let's do it by paying for it with the 
prevention fund, which is a program in health care that I think, over 
time, is not only going to help families all across this country, but 
it is going to begin to do what we have all said we have to do, bend 
that cost curve for health care.
  Instead of a debate about how to pay for this in a responsible way--
and we are certainly open to proposals if they have them, other than 
this prevention fund, which I think is a nonstarter--they have 
suggested that our proposal, which is to close an egregious loophole in 
the Tax Code, is somehow a tax increase or somehow does not do the job. 
But Politifact, which is an objective body that looks at these various 
charges, has evaluated one claim that, in fact, our offset is a tax 
increase. Here is what they say:

       Actually, the bill changed tax rules only for S-
     corporations, and only on professionals like lawyers and 
     accountants who could be taking advantage of the tax code to 
     avoid paying payroll taxes. The Democrats took the additional 
     step of saying the rule change would only apply to 
     individuals who reported more than $200,000 in income.
       The bill's intent was to close a loophole on people who are 
     avoiding payroll taxes, taxes that they are supposed to pay 
     anyway.

  The Republican criticism ``gives the impression that all kinds of 
mom-and-pop operations might be subject to new, additional taxes, when 
actually the bill is aimed squarely at high-income professionals who 
are taking advantage of a loophole.
  The claim was rated by this organization as false. We are closing a 
loophole that benefits the wealthy and some of the most powerful 
interests in this country in order to allow middle-income families to 
send their children to school. I cannot think of anything more sensible 
or anything more fair.
  I will just return to the final point about these budgets. As I read 
them, they, by and large, echo the Ryan budget, which allows for a 
doubling of the interest rate on students and does other things that 
will harm middle-income and middle-class people all to benefit the 
wealthiest through additional tax cuts. That is not good fiscal policy, 
not good educational policy. It is not good policy for the growth of 
this country, to invest in education, and it is not fair. I would hope 
that we would reject them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator 
Alexander, in briefly making reference to a bill which we introduced 
today and which we will speak about in more detail on the Senate floor 
tomorrow.
  At the moment, the Senate is engaged in an important and purposeful 
debate on the budget. I support Chairman Conrad and his leadership of 
our Budget Committee. We will cast a series of other important and 
difficult votes on budget matters later today.

[[Page 6849]]

But I take 1 minute to say that at a time when there is not enough 
bipartisanship, I am grateful to Senator Alexander for his leadership 
and for working with me on an issue that will, I hope, move forward--
the debate on how we make the promise and the opportunity of America 
open to more real job creators.
  The record shows that a significant number of the most innovative and 
fastest growing companies in America were founded by immigrants. 
Immigrants have long contributed significantly to our culture, to our 
strength, and to our competitiveness. I think this particular bill, 
which opens a new class of visa for students from outside the United 
States who would pursue master's or doctoral programs in STEM, is an 
important step forward.
  There are many other issues in immigration we need to resolve. There 
are many other elements we need to reform. But I am grateful for the 
chance to work with Senator Alexander on this bill and will address it 
further tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the budget resolution I 
have introduced and on which we will have a vote later today, at least 
on a motion to proceed. I want to start with underscoring the magnitude 
of the challenge we face. We have a full-blown crisis that awaits. It 
could arrive at any moment virtually if we do not change the course we 
are on.
  The deficit we have in 2012, $1.3 trillion, is the fourth consecutive 
year with a deficit of over $1 trillion. We are now routinely running 
deficits that are 7, 8, 9 percent of GDP. Of course, every year we run 
a deficit, the excessive spending over the tax revenue has to be funded 
by more borrowing. So we have the mounting debt that is now at stunning 
levels. For much of the post-war era, after the big repayment of debt 
after World War II, the national debt fluctuated somewhere around 40 
percent of our total economic output.
  Today our actual debt held by the public is 73 percent of our total 
economic output, and that is just the publicly held debt. That does not 
include the liabilities within the government, which, if you add that, 
is up to 100 percent of our total economic output. This has never ended 
well for a country that last chose to run up massive deficits and 
massive debt. I would argue that we are seeing exactly how this 
typically plays out. We are seeing it across the Atlantic in Europe 
where countries are a little further down this road than we are today, 
having run big structural deficits for longer than we have, and having 
accumulated more debt as a percentage of GDP than we have thus far.
  We see what has happened, especially in countries such as Greece 
where it is particularly acute, and other countries, especially on the 
periphery of Europe, that arguably are not terribly far behind. This is 
completely unsustainable, and I think what we are witnessing today on 
the Senate floor is that there is one party in this Chamber that is 
addressing the problem. There is one party that is proposing very 
specific solutions.
  It is perfectly reasonable to have objections and disagreements with 
any number of elements in my budget resolution or Senator Paul's or 
Senator Lee's or the Ryan budget. But what I do not understand is how 
the majority party, the party that is actually in control of this 
Chamber, can think that it is OK not to have an alternative, not to 
offer a vision, not to offer a solution to the biggest problem we face 
as a nation and one that is imminent; one that if left unaddressed 
certainly will result in a crisis. It is just a question of when.
  So I think this is an unacceptable abdication of responsibility. But 
that is where we are. I would argue that what got us into this problem 
is too much spending. Look at the numbers. They speak volumes. Since 
2000, Federal spending has more than doubled. We took spending, which 
was as recently as 2007 only a little over 19 percent of our total 
economic output, and grew that to 24 percent of our economic output. 
That is a tremendous surge, not just in the absolute dollars in 
spending but in the relative size of spending relative to our economy.
  President Obama's budget is not a serious attempt to deal with this. 
It was put on the floor of the House of Representatives and got 
precisely zero votes. It failed 414 to 0, meaning not a single Democrat 
wanted to vote for the President's proposal. I can understand why. The 
President's proposal is to increase spending, increase taxes, and 
increase debt.
  The President's proposal claims to level off debt as a percentage of 
GDP for a brief time but then starts to grow again. The reason the 
President absolutely refuses to offer a budget resolution that solves 
this problem is because he refuses to deal with the real underlying 
driver of this, which we all know are the big entitlement programs.
  The current structure of these programs is unsustainable. If anyone 
doubts it, look at what CBO has shown us and has told us. By 2021, 9 
years from now, if we take three categories of Federal spending: the 
Social Security Program, interest on our debt, and health care 
entitlements, those three things combined will consume almost 90 
percent of all of the revenue we can realistically hope to collect, if 
the last several decades are any indication of what we are going to 
collect.
  How could it possibly be that we would continue down this path where 
those three categories are going to consume virtually the entire 
budget? I would also observe it is a simple matter of arithmetic that 
no significant Federal Government program can grow faster than the 
economy for very long because everything has to be paid for by the 
economy. In fact, it has to be paid for by some fraction of the 
economy. If we have a big program that is consistently growing much 
faster than the economy, well, it will consume everything. Then these 
programs will collapse, and then what are we going to do?
  Rather than waiting for that day to come, some of us are proposing 
specific solutions for this problem. Medicare is growing much faster 
than the economy. Medicaid is growing, arguably, at least two times as 
fast as the economy. Other mandatory health care programs, if President 
Obama gets his way, will grow even faster.
  This is all completely unsustainable, and we are going to fix this 
problem. The question is whether we fix it while we have this window of 
time, when we are still able to borrow the massive sums that we are 
borrowing, or will we wait until we have a full blown crisis, the bond 
market shuts us down, and then we have sudden Draconian and very 
disruptive and painful decisions to make.
  I would rather do this while we have this moment, change the course 
we are on, and establish a sustainable fiscal path. So I have submitted 
a budget for the second consecutive year that puts us on a path to 
balance. My budget balances within the 10-year historical window of the 
budget resolutions. It actually balances in the eighth year and runs a 
very modest budget surplus in the ninth year.
  I do that in part by reducing the total level of spending relative to 
GDP as compared to the alternative budgets, specifically the 
President's alternative or CBO's. I cannot compare it to the Senate's 
Democratic alternative budget because that does not exist. We have no 
idea what the Senate Democratic proposal is, but I have one.
  So I will elaborate on that a little bit. My proposal is that we get 
spending down to about 18.3 percent of GDP. That is about the same 
level revenue has been historically, which thereby brings our budget 
into balance. Some of my colleagues have suggested there are Draconian 
spending cuts that will get us there. Well, let me be very specific 
about what spending cuts are necessary to achieve this.
  In 2013, spending in my budget is 2.9 percent below what it is in 
2012, which means the Federal Government will spend--under my budget, 
it would spend 97.1 percent of everything it spent the previous year. 
People can decide whether that constitutes Draconian cuts.

[[Page 6850]]

  Now, here is the amazing thing. After that, on average, over the 10-
year window, my budget calls for Federal spending to increase--in fact, 
to increase at about a rate of 3 percent per year nominally. See, this 
is my point. This is a solvable problem. All we need to do is cut out 
some of the excess, restructure certain programs, and allow the 
government spending to grow. It just cannot grow quite as rapidly as it 
is currently projected to do.
  If we get that under control, we can put ourselves on a sustainable 
path.
  Another part of this is to have policies that maximize economic 
growth. I mean that is an important goal in and of itself, but it is 
also a path to restoring balance because stronger growth generates more 
revenue for the Treasury.
  Well, my budget would do that without raising taxes. What I would do 
is have progrowth tax reform. That is comparable in spirit and in the 
right direction. It goes to all of the bipartisan commissions that have 
looked at this, whether it is Simpson-Bowles or Rivlin-Domenici or any 
of the others. I know there is broad bipartisan consensus on the 
principle that we would have stronger economic growth if we simplified 
the code, broaden the base on which we apply taxes, and then apply 
those taxes but at lower marginal rates. That is what my budget calls 
for. It should not be all that controversial to move in this direction 
of tax simplification, lowering marginal rates, and offsetting the lost 
revenue by reducing the value of deductions and loopholes and 
writeoffs. That is what my budget asks for.
  There are a couple of areas that I think are important where there is 
bipartisan support for elements within my budget. One is, the President 
of the United States suggested in his budget that very wealthy senior 
citizens contribute a little bit more for the Medicare benefits that 
they obtain. Some means testing already occurs within Medicare. But I 
happen to agree with the President that it is reasonable, especially 
under these circumstances, to ask the wealthiest members of our society 
to pay a little more for the benefits they are getting from the 
government.
  So my budget adopts the President's proposal of expanding means 
testing, expanding the contribution we would ask from the wealthiest 
Americans for their Medicare benefits.
  I also include in my budget long-term reform for Medicare that makes 
it more viable. This has been much maligned despite the fact that one 
of our Democratic colleagues, Senator Wyden, supports this approach as 
well.
  I wish to emphasize that this is a different plan than what it was 
last year. Last year there was a criticism that any premium support 
model that establishes the amount of money given to seniors to purchase 
health care at a fixed dollar amount was a flawed approach because what 
if health care costs rose more rapidly than that amount could afford to 
pay for? That is a valid concern.
  There is a different dynamic, a different mechanism in the House-
passed budget, and in my budget, and I think it is part of the reason a 
Democratic Senator has embraced this, and Alice Rivlin, a former senior 
member of the Clinton administration, supports this. You set the 
premium based on the second lowest bid for the health care services we 
want to provide, thereby ensuring that a senior citizen would have 
enough money to purchase that plan. Not only that but we go further and 
include the traditional fee-for-service Medicare system to which 
seniors are currently accustomed--we include that as one of the plans 
that could bid. So it is absolutely the case that any senior citizen 
who wanted to stay with the traditional fee-for-service Medicare 
Program could do so under the reform plan.
  I happen to believe that in an innovative marketplace, there will be 
more attractive options. I happen to know that under this system, a lot 
of seniors--my parents included--have to wait forever to see a doctor, 
and part of the problem is the dysfunctional system we have now. It is 
already costing us access and quality in health care.
  I think this reform will make Medicare a better program for the 
people who need it. Yes, we will ask the wealthy to pay a little more 
for it. That is reasonable. Those seniors who want to stay in 
traditional Medicare can do that too. In the process, you can put this 
on a sustainable path. It has some bipartisan support. Mr. President, 
we don't really know the extent of that because our Democratic 
colleagues refuse to put a budget or mark up a budget in committee, 
present one on the floor.
  I will close with this request, which is to vote for the motion to 
proceed. Let's get on to my budget and have a debate about this, and 
let's see where people are. I don't know how we are ever going to reach 
the compromise we need to reach to put us on a sustainable path if one 
party is consistently putting out a whole range of ideas and the other 
party refuses. How do you negotiate with somebody who doesn't have a 
position? How do you have that discussion?
  I don't know how many of my Democratic colleagues agree with the 
President of the United States and my own thought that we ought to ask 
wealthy seniors to pay a little more for Medicare benefits. If we get 
on the bill, we could have a debate and have amendments. I think this 
is too big and too important an issue not to address. The way to 
address it is to vote yes on the motion to proceed to get on a budget 
resolution, and then let's have that discussion and let the American 
people see it. Let's take their ideas and all of the ideas we have and 
see if we can make some progress.
  There is an unambiguous fact that I want to underscore. There is one 
party showing up at this debate--the three Republican Senators who are 
proposing budget resolutions, comprehensive documents that address the 
entitlement reform we need, the discretionary spending limit we need, 
and the tax reform that will help grow this economy and generate the 
revenue we need. We have done that. As I say, it is perfectly fair and 
legitimate to criticize any aspect of any of that, but I think there is 
an obligation especially of the majority to offer its view, its 
alternative.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to proceed and 
allow us to get on with addressing the single most pressing problem 
facing our country, which is restoring a fiscally viable path that 
allows us to have strong economic growth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I think we allocated 8 minutes to Senator 
Whitehouse.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. That was part of a unanimous consent agreement so that we 
could manage the time on the floor better. We have, I say to the 
Senator, 60 minutes left on our side. I think they have 100 minutes 
left on their side. We have seven Senators left.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Eight minutes just about works, from the math.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the chairman, Senator Conrad, for his 
leadership on this important issue.
  I would note for the record that with the conclusion of Senator 
Toomey's remarks, following Senator Reed, I think for the first time in 
the history of the Senate we had back-to-back presentations by two 
separate Senators who were graduates of LaSalle Academy in Providence, 
RI--noteworthy, perhaps, in Rhode Island.
  I did note in his remarks his references to the magnitude of this 
challenge, to the full-blown crisis he perceives, to the completely 
unsustainable nature of our outward debt, that this is too big and too 
important not to address, and that this is the single most pressing 
problem our country faces--all of which might lead one to conclude that 
this would be the most important thing they would pursue. Yet we know 
it is less important to them to address our debt problem than it is to 
protect oil and gas subsidies for Big Oil at a time when their profits 
are unprecedented; it is less important than protecting tax loopholes 
that allow high-income individuals to incorporate

[[Page 6851]]

themselves and avoid paying FICA taxes; it is less important to them 
than protecting special tax rates that allow people making $100 million 
a year to pay a lower tax rate than a family making $100,000 a year. So 
it seems that when you actually look at practice--what their priorities 
are--this isn't quite the priority they claim it is.
  I agree there are other priorities we face as a country. This July, 
unless we move quickly, student loan interest rates will double, which 
will hurt our economy, our growth, and it will hit families across this 
country. We brought forward a plan to keep those rates down, but our 
colleagues filibustered it. Our Nation's highway program will expire 
next month, jeopardizing millions of jobs. We voted overwhelmingly on a 
bipartisan basis to reauthorize the highway bill and move forward on 
it, only to have our bipartisan highway bill stalled by House 
Republicans. Republicans may talk about jobs, but they are busily 
stalling the most important jobs bill we have. That stalling and delay 
will cost jobs because of the summer building season in so many of our 
States.
  One thing that has not been urgent has been to pass a budget. Why is 
that? Well, it is because we already have one. This whole exercise 
today rests on a false premise. The false premise is that we have no 
budget. Last summer Congress passed and the President signed into law 
the bipartisan Budget Control Act, which sets binding discretionary 
spending levels for a decade and establishes budget levels for the 
current fiscal year and next, which our appropriations committees are 
now working under--Republicans and Democrats together. But you would 
not know this when listening to Senate Republicans. Instead of focusing 
on real issues, where real jobs are at stake, they are wasting a day of 
floor time on extremist tea party budgets. They also plan to force a 
vote on what they describe as the ``Obama budget.''
  I plan to vote against all of the motions to proceed for the simple 
reason that we already have a budget in place that we voted on and 
agreed to for next year. Today's votes are nothing more than a 
Republican attempt to promote a radical and unwelcome agenda of 
slashing middle-class programs while protecting and enlarging tax 
giveaways for the ultrarich.
  Let's make no mistake about what this would do to middle-class 
families. The House Republican budget would start by cutting taxes for 
big corporations and the ultrarich, adding $4.6 trillion to our 
national debt. To pay for these extra tax cuts, the Republicans would 
decimate programs on which regular American families at some point in 
their lives come to rely. They start by ending Medicare as we know it. 
Beginning for workers who retire in 2023, the House Republican budget 
would make it a voucher system, which, according to the nonpartisan 
CBO, will add an estimated $6,000 in annual out-of-pocket costs for 
each retiree by 2050. In Rhode Island, the average annual Social 
Security benefit is about $13,600. It is hard to imagine how future 
seniors living on a fixed Social Security income will be able to 
maintain health care coverage with that kind of extra cost dropped on 
them individually. At the same time that they would slash Medicare, the 
House Republican budget gives those making over $1 million per year an 
average tax cut of over $150,000.
  If you are getting older or you are a working family and you are 
going to need Medicare one day, you will get an end to Medicare as we 
know it. If you are making over $1 million, you get an average tax cut 
of over $150,000. Those are not real priorities for the people I 
represent in Rhode Island.
  It doesn't stop there. They repeal the affordable care act, which 
would reopen the doughnut hole. The affordable care act has helped 
nearly 15,000 Rhode Islanders save an average of $554 each last year 
just by closing the doughnut hole partway, and soon it will be all the 
way. That made a difference to people such as Olive in Woonsocket, 
whose husband fell into the doughnut hole last July. Thanks to the new 
law, they saved $2,400. Under the House Republican budget, they would 
be stuck paying that $2,400 as an out-of-pocket cost to the big drug 
companies.
  The radical House budget would slash funding for Pell grants, and it 
would increase interest on student loans. We have all heard people say 
here that they don't want to encourage the increase in student loan 
rates we are facing. But while they say that, they, of course, are 
filibustering our effort to do that. In their budget, they build in the 
increase in the interest rate. So they speak from two notions.
  The House budget requires only $1 trillion in additional and 
unspecified cuts, and that will be Draconian. Senator Paul's budget, 
which we may take up today, would also slash middle-class programs, 
including Social Security. He includes an eventual 39 percent cut to 
Social Security benefits and would end Medicare for all seniors in 
2014. If you want to put an end to Medicare in 2014, the Paul budget 
looks like a really great opportunity for you. But that is not what I 
think anybody really wants in this country. I think almost every 
American wants to see Medicare strengthened and supported.
  We should move on from this unnecessary budget messaging exercise and 
resume our work to keep student loan rates down and support good-paying 
highway jobs--bills that are being delayed that we need action on now. 
When we turn to a real debate about deficit reduction, I hope my 
colleagues will unshackle themselves from the tea party and put forward 
a budget that doesn't put Big Oil subsidies ahead in priority of taking 
care of our real budget problems. They have to get over putting the 
priorities first of protecting Big Oil subsidies.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island. I thank him for 
his contributions on the Budget Committee. I don't think there has been 
any stronger voice for fundamental health care reform along the lines 
of dealing with the system we currently have that, by most accounts, is 
costing us hundreds of billions of dollars and not adding to the 
quality of health care. Nobody has been a stronger voice on the Budget 
Committee or off of it on that subject. I appreciate the Senator's 
leadership.
  We have Senator Wicker next. Does the Senator have an estimate as to 
how much time he may consume?
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I have been told I have 10 minutes 
allocated, and I shall use probably less than that allocation.
  Mr. CONRAD. Very well. Senator Wicker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. I thank the Chair for recognizing me and I appreciate the 
time.
  I want to agree with my friend from Rhode Island to this extent: He 
said this debate is based on a false premise. And I agree with him in 
this respect. This is not a reality debate about a budget resolution. 
These are show votes. These are messaging votes we have today.
  One can argue all he or she wants that we have a budget in place that 
we voted on last year, but there is no getting around 2 U.S.C. 631, 
which is the budget law of the United States of America, passed back in 
1974. That budget law requires Congress each year to pass a budget 
resolution. As a matter of fact, it says on or before April 15 of each 
year, Congress completes action on a concurrent resolution on the 
budget.
  The last time this Senate did that was in 2009. We missed the April 
15 deadline in 2010, the leadership of this body missed that deadline 
in 2011, and they missed it again this year. It has been that long 
since this body, under the leadership of my friends across the aisle, 
have complied with the explicit terms of the Federal statute and 
brought a budget to full consideration on the floor.
  What we will have today is debate on five concepts. I am happy to 
vote for some of them, and will certainly vote against others, but make 
no mistake about it, this is not the process called for by the Federal 
statute and it doesn't comply with the law and doesn't serve the 
purposes of advancing public policy in the United States of

[[Page 6852]]

America. We are long overdue for a real budget debate that puts 
something in place.
  As I mentioned a moment ago, we have passed the 3-year mark now--
1,100 days--since Senate Democrats fulfilled one of their basic 
obligations, as I mentioned, laid out in Federal statute. A recent 
column in the Washington Times pointed out that the iPad had not yet 
even been introduced when the last budget was passed on the floor of 
this Senate. But since that time, in 3 years, Federal spending has 
topped a staggering $10 trillion.
  Every day our country's debt grows closer to $16 trillion. This is 
money my generation will not be able to pay. We have our pages here on 
the floor. Even their generation will not be able to pay off this $16 
trillion in debt. It will be left to their children and grandchildren. 
Annual deficits continue to soar, adding to that debt--over $1 trillion 
each year during President Obama's time in office--even though the 
President promised in 2009 he would cut the deficit in half during his 
first term, a promise that certainly has not been fulfilled. Instead, 
his latest budget relies more on spending, new taxes, and accounting 
gimmicks, and it leaves insolvent entitlement programs without 
meaningful reform.
  I noticed the previous speaker stated he would not be voting for 
President Obama's budget proposal. I think it is because it is such a 
false and weak proposal. I expect the Obama budget today would get the 
same response it got on the floor of the Senate during these messaging 
votes last year when it failed to get a single vote. As I understand 
it, it failed to get a single vote in the House of Representatives. Not 
one Republican or Democrat in the House of Representatives earlier this 
year was willing to step forward and embrace the Obama budget proposal, 
and it got a big fat zero when it was put to a messaging vote in the 
House of Representatives. So we are watching a disastrous trajectory 
and we need to change it now.
  Families, businesses, and organizations in my home State of 
Mississippi, and in every State across the country, know the importance 
of having a sensible budget and living within that budget; likewise, 
taxpayers deserve to see a blueprint of where their money is going and 
how much will be spent. Washington must be held accountable.
  We heard talk on the other side of the aisle about priorities that 
our Democratic friends wish to see enacted. The Democratic majority in 
the Budget Committee needs to bring those priorities forward. They need 
to wrap them up in a budget resolution and bring them to the floor. 
That is the one thing we are not seeing today--a proposal by the 
Democratic majority.
  It only takes 51 votes to pass a budget. There is no two-thirds rule 
on a budget resolution. There is no filibuster on a budget resolution. 
My Democratic colleagues, many of whom are dear friends of mine, have 
53 Members in this caucus. They have the votes. We know a budget is 
required every year. Yet with a 53-vote majority, and with only 51 
votes required, they do not bring a budget to the floor for us to 
consider so we can know what their budget priorities are.
  There are plenty of excuses from across the aisle for not complying 
with the clear mandate, but there is no excuse. It is inexcusable that 
the majority party in this Chamber refuses to fulfill this statutory 
responsibility when the warning signs of fiscal calamity are at our 
doorstep.
  You know, it is no wonder our popularity rating as a Congress is down 
around 10 or 11 percent when this Federal statute explicitly requires 
us to do this by April of each year and we do not do it. It is no 
wonder we are held in such low regard by the public. Inaction 
ultimately bequeaths a burden of debt to our children and 
grandchildren.
  We certainly cannot blame the inaction on an absence of ideas. As has 
been stated by my friend from Rhode Island, we have five proposals 
before us today. President Obama's will probably get zero votes. The 
House Republican blueprint will be considered, and budgets from 
Senators Lee, Paul, and Toomey. Yet the Senate Democrats, regrettably, 
stay on the sidelines. They have the votes, but we do not have their 
proposal on the floor--one they are willing to put forward and tell the 
American people they own.
  My friend the budget chairman has suggested the upcoming election 
stands in the way. In April he said:

       This is the wrong time to vote in committee. This is the 
     wrong time to vote on the floor. I don't think we will be 
     prepared to vote before the election.

  I want to make it clear, I have the highest affection and regard for 
the chairman of the Budget Committee, but I do believe what he is 
saying, in other words, is that we have a job to do, we have a law to 
comply with, but we are not going to bring it up at this time because 
of political concerns. I think political concerns are keeping our 
friends on the other side from saying where they stand on the budget 
issues. I think political concerns are keeping them from making the 
hard choices.
  I can imagine the American taxpayer would like to know when will be 
the right time for the Senate to begin complying with Federal law and 
the right time for a budget that takes fiscal responsibility seriously. 
They know kicking the can down the road will not make the debt problem 
go away.
  I noticed recently our Commander in Chief told a Russian leader that 
after the election he would have more flexibility on a national 
security issue--the issue of national military defense. He said, I need 
to have some time, because after the election I will have more 
flexibility. Please pass that along to Vladimir. I suppose my friends 
on the other side of the aisle believe they will have more flexibility 
on spending issues and budget issues and taxation issues after the 
election.
  The truth is Republicans and Democrats have differences on a number 
of issues, but that should not deter a concentrated effort to lower the 
deficit and curb runaway spending. I hope this week we can focus on 
constructive dialogue. I would have hoped we would have an honest 
process and do what is right and necessary to put this country's fiscal 
house back in order.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CONRAD. If I may, if the Senator could do his presentation in 
about 8 minutes, we have six speakers left and we have 50 minutes.
  Mr. CARPER. I will be happy to do so.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, in listening to the presentation of my 
friend from Mississippi, I am reminded of the words of Harry Truman 
when he said something to the effect: The only thing new in the world 
is the history we forgot or never learned.
  I want to go back in history. I want to go back about 15 years. We 
had gone from 1968 to 1997 and never balanced a budget. All those 
years--almost 30 years. Then President Clinton said to Erskine Bowles, 
his Chief of Staff, figure out a way to maybe negotiate a balanced 
budget deal with Republicans in the House and in the Senate and see 
what kind of deal you can get. So Erskine went out and negotiated and 
came up with a deal. It was the deficit reduction deal that lead to not 
one but three balanced budgets by the end of that decade. Interestingly 
enough, half of the debt reduction was on the spending side and half 
the debt reduction was on the revenue side.
  Now fast forward to 2001, a new President, a change in 
administration, and as far as the eye could see not just balanced 
budgets but plenty of black ink--surpluses as far as the eye could see. 
Eight years later, we had another change in administration, and a new 
President was handed over a $1 trillion deficit, the worst recession 
since the Great Depression, and we are still trying to dig our way out 
of that. When we tried to pass legislation here to create a deficit 
commission a couple of years ago and failed--we were short of votes, 
and our Republican friends who had cosponsored that measure, as I 
recall, ended up not voting for it--this President used his own 
executive powers to say we are going to have a deficit commission and 
he asked Erskine Bowles

[[Page 6853]]

to head it up, along with Alan Simpson, a former Senator and deficit 
hawk from Wyoming.
  There were 18 good people, including some from this Chamber, who went 
to work on a real deficit reduction plan--Democrats and Republicans--
and 11 out of the 18 ended up voting for this kind of plan. It was not 
a 50 50 deal on deficit reduction, but $3 on the spending side for 
every $1 on the revenue side, with $4 trillion to $5 trillion in 
deficit reduction over a 10-year period of time.
  As my friend mentioned, we are seeing a lot of different ideas. We 
have a bunch here on the floor. The administration submitted their 
budget as well, and, frankly, none of them come close to being as good 
as Bowles-Simpson. Alice Rivlin has done good work. Pete Domenici, our 
former colleague here in the Senate from New Mexico, has done a good 
one. But in the end, they all come back to pretty much the same place. 
Bowles-Simpson says we are going to raise $1 in revenue for every $3 on 
the spending side.
  The grand compromise was Democrats agreeing to entitlement programs 
reform--not to get rid of them but make sure they are going to be 
around for our children and grandchildren. And on the revenue side, we 
actually raise revenues by reducing the rates on the individual side 
and the corporate side, and we eliminated by half the so-called ``tax 
expenditures'' in the Tax Code--tax credits, tax reductions, tax 
loopholes, tax breaks. We got rid of about half of them.
  So the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission plan enjoys the support of 
almost half the Senate--almost half the Senate. Pretty much an equal 
number of Democrats and Republicans. We have a budget in place right 
now. We have a budget in place for 2012. We have a budget that is going 
to be effective for 2013. Right now, we are seeing a deficit reduction 
of $600 billion in defense spending implemented over a 10-year period 
of time. Right now, we are seeing a deficit reduction of $600 billion 
in domestic discretionary spending implemented over a 10-year period of 
time. And if we don't come up with an agreement, such as Bowles-
Simpson, we will see $600 billion more of deficit reduction on the 
defense side, another $600 billion on the nondefense side, and some 
entitlement program changes as well.
  A much better plan than doing that--even though that adds up to about 
$2 trillion worth of deficit reduction for this year and the coming 
fiscal year--is the kind of comprehensive balanced plan we have been 
given by the deficit commission. My hope is, at the end of the day, 
when we have the opportunity to debate here--later this year, when the 
elections are behind us--people will actually turn around and say, 
let's try to figure out the right thing to do, and then do it. This is 
the right thing to do. In the meantime, let's not waste the next 6, 7, 
or 8 months.
  I would suggest to my colleagues to join the bipartisan efforts of 
people such as Tom Coburn and myself and others, Senator Conrad and 
Senator Grassley and others, and to join us in going to work on a to-do 
list provided to us by GAO, the Government Accountability Office. That 
to-do list is just full of ways to avoid wasting money, and it includes 
ways to save money by reducing improper payments. We are down from $119 
billion last year to $115 billion this year, finally heading in the 
right direction, reducing fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.
  Some very good stuff is being done there to help reduce the fraud 
losses. We have all this surplus property, a lot of which we don't 
need. The idea is to get rid of that, and we are beginning to do that. 
We have too many bad information technology projects and too many 
information processing centers. We are getting rid of a bunch of those 
we don't need. There is actually some good work that is beginning to be 
done. We can do more, and we ought to do more.
  Lastly, I would suggest we ought to consider making the President's 
rescission powers real. Senator McCain and I and about 40, almost 45, 
Democrats and Republicans have proposed that we make the President's 
rescission powers real. The President could sign an appropriations bill 
under current law, send us proposals to rescind or reduce spending 
within that appropriations bill that he has just signed into law, and 
we don't even have to vote on the rescission. We don't even have to 
take it up or look at it. For the most part, we don't. What John McCain 
and I and almost half the Senate, Democratic and Republican, have said 
is, when a President signs an appropriations bill into law and sends it 
to us, he can send us a rescission message as well that we have to vote 
on, we actually have to vote on it. And it doesn't affect taxes. It is 
not a deal that affects entitlement programs but on appropriations, and 
we would try this for 4 years.
  With a simple majority, we literally vote on the President's 
proposal. If it doesn't get a simple majority in the Senate--51 votes--
or a simple majority in the House--218 votes--then it goes away. But at 
least we have to take responsibility to be held accountable to vote on 
it. The President would perhaps have some extra responsibility and the 
opportunity to make meaningful reductions.
  Mr. President, how am I doing on time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds.
  Mr. CARPER. I want to close and say to my friend, Senator Conrad, I 
know the Senator, as much as I, favors Bowles-Simpson, and I want to 
thank the Senator for the work he is doing in bringing attention to it 
again and saying this is still the best plan in the room. I think it is 
still the best plan out there.
  So the idea is when we get to the day or the week after the election, 
we will be ready to move and to take it up and, hopefully, to embrace 
and endorse large parts of it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator, and I thank him for 
his leadership on these issues. Nobody has been more serious about 
getting deficits and debt under control than the Senator from Delaware, 
Mr. Carper.
  Mr. President, how much time would Senator Grassley like to use?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Ten minutes or a little less.
  Mr. CONRAD. Perhaps we can ask for a unanimous consent request to 
lock in these next Senators so people know who is waiting.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am not prepared to speak for our side.
  Mr. CONRAD. We can do it. We have been doing this and I think it 
works out well.
  So I ask unanimous consent that Senator Grassley be recognized for 10 
minutes, followed by Senator Cardin for 8, followed by Senator Crapo 
for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, adopting a budget for the country is one 
of the most basic responsibilities and fundamental functions of the 
Congress.
  The Budget Act of 1974 requires Congress to adopt a budget by April 
15 each year. It is a requirement that this Senate majority has ignored 
time and again. In fact, the Senate hasn't adopted a budget since April 
29, 2009.
  More than 3 years have passed since the Senate last adopted a budget. 
During that time, more than $4 trillion has been added to our Nation's 
debt. In President Obama's Presidency, we have added $5 trillion to the 
national debt.
  So we are in the midst of the fourth consecutive year of $1 trillion 
deficits. All the while, the Senate Democratic majority has failed to 
propose a budget blueprint that would lay out their priorities for 
deficit reduction, economic growth, and a path to balance. It is no 
wonder, then, our Nation is driving toward a fiscal cliff of deficits 
and debt. There is no one in the Democratic leadership willing to take 
hold of the wheel of this vehicle.
  In February, President Obama released his budget. The President's 
2013 budget would expand the scope of government by spending more 
money, increasing taxes on job creators, and continue on the path of 
enormous deficit and record debt.

[[Page 6854]]

  While President Obama claims his budget will create an America built 
to last, the only thing his budget builds, it seems to me, is higher 
deficits and debt--a bigger and more intrusive government and economic 
decline for future generations.
  During the past 60 years spending has averaged about 21 percent of 
GDP. Over the 10-year window of President Obama's budget, spending 
never gets below 22 percent. In dollar terms, spending goes up from the 
present $3.8 trillion to $5.8 trillion in the year 2022. So it is very 
clear President Obama is built to spend.
  President Obama's budget is also harmful to our fragile economy 
because it would impose a $1.9 trillion tax increase. Maybe the 
President's purpose in imposing this huge tax increase is an effort to 
reduce the Nation's debt. Unfortunately, that is not what he has 
planned in his budget. He wants to spend every dollar.
  His budget runs deficits totaling $6.4 trillion over the next 10 
years. Debt held by the public increases from 74.2 percent of our 
economy today to 76.33 percent in 2022. Of course, we need to remember 
that the historical average since World War II has been about 43 
percent of the economy.
  If people believe President Obama is putting us on a path to fiscal 
sustainability, I would suggest that they look at the annual deficits 
over the next 10 years. They never drop below $575 billion, and they 
actually go up at the end of his budget, rising to $704 billion in 
2022. President Obama's budget puts America on the course of deficits 
and debt as far as the eye can see into the future.
  The President also took a pass on proposing any real changes to our 
entitlement programs, which are a real driver of future deficits and 
debt. Again, he is absent from the discussion. He has no solution. He 
has chosen not to lead. But where is the leadership from the Senate 
majority? Where is their budget? Why have they not proposed a budget in 
more than 3 years?
  The budget chairman has said repeatedly that we already have a budget 
in place for this year and even for next year. The chairman and 
majority leader believe the Budget Control Act was a budget resolution. 
The Budget Control Act is not a budget. President Obama clearly agreed 
when he proposed his budget. House Republicans and Democrats alike 
agreed when they voted on seven budget resolutions offered by both 
Republicans and Democrats. The Democratic leadership in the Senate 
stands alone in their belief that the Budget Control Act was a budget 
resolution. Is it because they have no ideas on how to balance the 
budget, contain out-of-control spending, grow the economy, or create 
jobs?
  If the Democratic majority can't muster the will to present their own 
budget, why don't they offer President Obama's budget?
  I am sure we will hear the argument that the resolution our side is 
offering is not a fair depiction of President Obama's budget. That is 
the rhetoric we will likely hear so that they can vote against it. The 
fact is they are going to vote against it for one reason, just like a 
year ago; that is, because it is President Obama's budget. They don't 
want to be on record voting for any budget. That will be the most 
remarkable outcome of today's exercise.
  We are going to vote on five different budget proposals. Three are 
being offered by Senate Republicans, one is Budget Chairman Ryan's 
budget, and the final resolution is President Obama's budget. Not only 
have Senate Democrats failed to even propose a budget, they will likely 
vote in lockstep against each of the five budget proposals.
  We are likely to see Senate Democrats come to the floor one by one 
and cast roughly 265 votes against the consideration of any budget. Is 
that leadership? Is that conviction? They are in the majority. When it 
comes to proposing and supporting a budget, they are the party of no 
and the party of obstruction. Democrats are the party filibustering 
consideration of budget blueprints. My friend, the budget chairman, was 
quoted recently as saying:

       This is the wrong time to vote in committee. This is the 
     wrong time to vote on the floor. I don't think we will be 
     prepared to vote before the election.

  How many more trillions do we need to add to the national debt before 
it is time to vote on a budget resolution? If now is not the time to 
lead, propose bold solutions and take action, when is?
  The American people are going to pay a heavy price for the 
unwillingness and inability of the Senate majority to lead and to offer 
solutions. Once again, the Senate majority and its leadership and 
President Obama are content to be absent from the discussion. Three 
years without this sort of debate is proof of that. There are no 
solutions; there is no leadership. There is only failure and punting 
until after the next election.
  We have a moral obligation to offer serious solutions for today--most 
importantly for future generations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the budget document is a very important 
document.
  It speaks to the priorities of our Nation, and it gives instructions 
to our committees to report out legislation consistent with that of the 
budget resolution. It gives instructions to the Appropriations 
Committee to pass appropriations bills and to other committees as it 
may affect revenues or mandatory spending.
  We have that budget document for the fiscal year that begins October 
1 of this year. That was included in the Budget Control Act which 
passed this body by 74 votes. It has the force and effect of law.
  So our appropriations committees know the numbers for the 
appropriations bills for the year that begins October 1, and the other 
committees know what the requirements will be. The question is whether 
we should have a longer term commitment on dealing with our budget 
problems.
  We do need a bipartisan, credible program that involves not only the 
Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, but also the Democrats and 
Republicans in the House, and the President of the United States. We 
need to avoid sequestration, and we need the predictability for our 
economy and for those who act upon our actions to know what the rules 
will be. We need to have a responsible plan to deal with the long-term 
deficit that is balanced and fair, that involves more revenue and 
spending cuts, that allows our recovery to continue, and is bipartisan.
  I compliment Senator Conrad for his leadership in giving us an 
opportunity to move in that direction. I think Senator Conrad showed 
tremendous leadership on behalf of the Democratic members of the Budget 
Committee to forgo bringing forward a partisan budget and instead said: 
Let's take a look at a long-term budget that can get bipartisan 
support, that has been tested, that has been out there, and that is 
called Bowles-Simpson.
  We are talking about the broad outline. A budget document gives broad 
instructions to the committee. It is the so-called macro numbers. I 
think the chairman has provided us the leadership on that issue. But do 
not get confused, we have a budget for the fiscal year that begins 
October 1. We have it earlier than we have ever had it, and it has the 
force and effect of law.
  Each of the four Republican plans that we will be voting on moves us 
in the wrong direction to accomplishing those goals. They use almost 
all of the spending cuts that are included in these budgets for 
additional tax cuts. It benefits primarily those who do not need an 
additional tax cut. The House Republican budget would provide $1 
trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, giving millionaires 
an average tax cut of $150,000. At the same time, that budget would ask 
our college students to pay more by allowing interest rates on their 
loans to increase, and they would ask our seniors to pay more by paying 
more for their Medicare benefits.
  They have it backward. Those who have sacrificed the most during 
these economic times under Republican budgets would be asked to pay 
more. Those who have benefited the most during that period of time 
would get

[[Page 6855]]

additional tax cuts. That is not what we should be doing. It would hurt 
our economic recovery.
  It is irresponsible to make the types of cuts that are in the 
Republican budget that deal with American innovation. Take a look what 
it would do for basic research in this country, which I hope we all 
agree is necessary for America to continue to lead the world in 
innovation. In my own State of Maryland I look at the jobs we created 
in the biotech field, through cybersecurity. Basic research is 
critically important to advance those job opportunities and economic 
opportunities for America. It would reduce our commitments to building 
our infrastructure--our transit systems, our roads, our energy grids. 
If we are going to be competitive, we need to rebuild America to meet 
the global challenges.
  It would reduce our commitments in education. An educated workforce 
is America's future. Investing in our children is what we should be 
doing. The quality of K 12 would suffer, even pre-K--what they do with 
Head Start--and I already mentioned the cost of student loans in 
postsecondary education would go up. For our seniors, they would be 
thrown into a voucher program in Medicare at the mercy of private 
insurance companies and asked to pay more when they are already 
overburdened by the costs of their health care.
  Under the Toomey budget, they would block-grant Medicaid, throwing 
that burden onto our States. Our children and families would suffer.
  Under the Paul budget, Social Security benefits would be reduced on 
average by 39 percent. Social Security is a vital lifeline for the 
people of this country. Turning it into a program that becomes a 
political football is not what we need for this country. For our 
students, the cost of a college education would be increased.
  We need to put forward a credible plan to reduce the deficit. We need 
to do this--and we have done it before. When Bill Clinton was President 
of the United States and I was serving in the House of Representatives, 
we passed a plan that balanced our Federal budget and actually created 
a surplus. How did we do it? We did it through a balanced approach. We 
did it through cutting spending and raising the revenues so we paid our 
bills. What were the results? Our economy took off, creating millions 
of jobs. That is what we need to do again.
  How do we get this done? Let's get working together. Let's have 
Democrats and Republicans work together in order to come up with a 
balanced approach that has spending cuts and those who can afford to 
pay more should be paying more because it is not fair to future 
generations for us to spend money today and ask our children and 
grandchildren to pay for it tomorrow.
  Let us protect the programs that are important for economic growth, 
for the dignity of our seniors, and for the welfare of our children. It 
starts with rejecting the extreme partisan budgets that our Republican 
colleagues are offering on the floor. I urge my colleagues to reject 
those budget resolutions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts by our Republican 
leader, Mitch McConnell, and by the ranking member of our Senate Budget 
Committee, Jeff Sessions, to give the Senate a chance today to do its 
job. It has been more than 3 years since the Senate has passed a 
budget, almost 1,100 days, $4 trillion in increased debt since we last 
had a budget. Yet it seems as if the current majority are the only ones 
who do not think passing a budget is part of our job.
  I have to stop here for a moment and commend the chairman of the 
Senate Budget Committee, Senator Conrad. I know he has fought mightily 
to get a budget to this floor. But the politics he faces have not 
allowed him to do so. As of today, for 1,100 days we have not been able 
to see a budget proposal reach the Senate floor from our committee.
  I have worked with Senator Conrad long and hard and will continue to 
do so, trying to get a broad, bipartisan solution brought forward. But 
today we need to take action on the Senate floor. Everyone else has a 
budget. The President has offered a budget. The House Republicans have 
offered a budget. The House Democrats have offered a budget. The Senate 
Republicans have introduced several budgets, which we will vote on here 
today.
  Every American family and every American business has to develop a 
budget. Previous Congresses, including those that enacted the 
Congressional Budget Act last year, clearly saw the importance of 
Congress enacting a budget every year. In fact, it was that 
congressional budget act that we were able to get in place last year 
that put into effect the mechanism we are employing today which says if 
the majority party leadership fails to bring a budget forward by the 
statutory deadline, then any Senator has the right to call for 
consideration of any budget on the Senate Calendar.
  Let's look at the budgets we will be voting on today. First we have 
the President's budget. At a time when our national debt is more than 
$15.6 trillion, well more than 100 percent of our gross domestic 
product, the President's budget seemingly makes no acknowledgment of 
the dramatic and predictable fiscal crisis we face. Instead of 
embracing the comprehensive work of his own fiscal commission, the 
Bowles-Simpson commission on which I served, or any of the other key 
bipartisan proposals that are available such as the Ryan-Wyden proposal 
or the Domenici-Rivlin plan or even coming up with a true reform plan 
of his own, the President's budget regrettably remains within the old 
discredited framework of trying to tax and spend our way into 
prosperity.
  The President's budget would raise taxes by $2 trillion. This is in 
addition to the $1.2 trillion of tax increases in the health care law 
which are just beginning to take effect and will continue to roll out 
over the next few years. Perhaps even more remarkable, the President's 
budget actually increases spending by $1.2 trillion more than current 
law. So another $1.2 trillion in new spending, another $2 to $3 
trillion in new taxes, no structural entitlement reform, and no 
discretionary spending reform.
  Even though it is widely acknowledged that the current paths of our 
entitlement programs are unsustainable and even though they are on 
track to soon become insolvent, the President's budget has no 
comprehensive reforms to our entitlement programs--none. The modest 
amount of health care savings he does propose would not even be enough 
to offset the extension of the doc fix or the other increases in the 
health care spending he proposes.
  This is a dangerous approach, and it should be noted that this budget 
failed by a vote of 0 to 414 in the House. Yet we have no other pending 
proposal from the other side to consider.
  Today the Senate will also have an opportunity to reject the 
President's approach to the Federal budget, and I expect it will do so, 
just as it did last time. Because the Democratic majority here in the 
Senate has failed to produce their own budget, we will also have the 
opportunity to vote on some important budget proposals offered by the 
House Budget Committee chairman and by our own colleagues here in the 
Senate, Senators Toomey, Paul, and Lee. Each of these proposals would 
include true comprehensive reforms to our entitlement programs to 
prevent the impending insolvency and to protect the programs for 
current and future generations, and would put us on a sustained pathway 
to balancing our Federal budget.
  These budgets also call for comprehensive tax reform which takes us 
out of the old paradigm of Congress debating whether to raise or cut 
taxes and, instead, these proposals would each in their own way 
dramatically streamline the Tax Code, reduce the tax rates, and unleash 
significant economic growth in our economy. A byproduct of this robust 
economic growth would be an increase in revenues to help us deal with 
our pending debt crisis.

[[Page 6856]]

  I again commend the chairman, Senator Conrad, for his effort to bring 
forward a comprehensive plan, a solution--one that originated with 
Bowles-Simpson on which he and I sat and one which has then been worked 
on by the so-called Gang of Six for a significant amount of time now to 
improve and bring forward, and one which the chairman is prepared to 
move when the opportunity is available. I have encouraged him to do it 
now. I believe we ought to have it on the floor today for this debate. 
But whenever the time becomes available, it is a proposal such as this 
that we need to be dealing with. We need to develop the bipartisan 
support that is necessary to pass it.
  What is it? First of all, as we worked on the Bowles-Simpson 
commission, we made some basic decisions. We concluded that spending 
was the major problem--that is where the major part of the solution 
should be--but that revenue was also critical to the solution and that 
growing our economy was an important part of anything Congress should 
do. We first discussed putting together a strong approach to 
entitlement reform, structural entitlement reform. We put strong 
spending caps in place and we made clear that our spending patterns in 
the Federal budget would be brought under control. In addition, 
recognizing the importance and need for strong growth, we concluded 
that our Tax Code must be reformed and not on the traditional 
battleground of whether to raise taxes on one group or lowering taxes 
on another but in a complete paradigm shift to focus on the reforming 
of both our corporate and individual tax codes.
  If you went about trying to create a Tax Code that was more unfair, 
more complex, more expensive to comply with, and more anticompetitive 
to our own American business interests, you would be hard pressed to do 
it different or worse than we have done with our own Tax Code. We 
concluded that we ought to reform that code to develop a strong, 
dynamic tax code for America to go forward with. That is why we 
proposed broadening the base, reducing the rates, and reforming the way 
we tax in America by simplifying our Tax Code and making America a 
strong, powerful, and robust economy as it historically has been.
  Then we put together what is critical for any plan to succeed, and 
that is an enforcement mechanism. Congress has a perfect record of 
violating its own budgets. Congress has a record of ignoring the 
budgets, simply getting 60 votes to waive the Budget Act whenever 
Congress wants to spend in excess of a budget. Literally in every 
budget for the last two decades or more, Congress has done so; 
Republican or Democratic, the Congresses have done so. What we put 
together in our negotiations was an enforcement plan that would keep 
Congress within the walls of the budget we adopt. It would have a 
series of points of order to protect against the declaration of 
emergencies unjustifiably and would then force even emergency spending, 
that usually is conducted outside the budget, to be done in the face of 
a sequestration backed up by 67-vote points of order on the floor of 
the Senate. This kind of strong enforcement is also critical to what we 
must do to protect our Nation.
  We need a comprehensive plan, we need to have entitlement reform, we 
have to have discretionary spending reform, and we need to have budget 
enforcement that is solid. We need to strengthen our revenue stream and 
enforce our Tax Code by lowering taxes. That gives American businesses 
the opportunity to compete aggressively across the globe.
  If we do so, we will see a strong revenue component to our reform 
measures, and we will see strong growth coming out of the fact that we 
put together effective spending controls. But we have to get there. We 
have to do it.
  I appreciate the opportunity to work with Senator Conrad as we try to 
put this kind of broad, comprehensive reform package together and build 
bipartisan support for it. But I am very discouraged still that we 
cannot get a budget proposal onto the floor of the Senate that we can 
work on.
  I also appreciate the leadership of Senator McConnell and Senator 
Sessions, who have given the Senate the opportunity today to debate 
this issue and have votes, at least, on meaningful proposals that move 
us down the path I have discussed, and put us onto a pathway for 
economic prosperity and growth for all.
  America is at a terrible crisis point. Our national debt is now 
exceeding over 100 percent of our GDP and threatens our economy. We 
must take action. We cannot let another year go by without adopting a 
budget on the floor of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would say to Senator Boxer the situation we find 
ourselves in is we only have 34 minutes left on our side. I will yield 
7 minutes to Senator Boxer.
  Senator Murray is here now.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will wait.
  Mr. CONRAD. We have a situation in which our time is rapidly 
fleeting. They have much more time left on their side than we do on 
ours.
  Could the Senator do her presentation in 7 minutes?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I will attempt to do my best.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Murray be allowed to speak for 7 minutes followed by Senator Boxer for 
7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Conrad for his 
leadership on this issue. At the end of last week, the Republicans in 
the House of Representatives passed legislation that continues their 
mad dash away from the bipartisan Budget Control Act and reflects the 
upside-down priorities that are guiding their party and stands 
absolutely no chance of passage in the Senate.
  I think it would be very helpful at this point to remind my 
colleagues of the recent history that has brought us to this point.
  In August of last year Democrats and Republicans came together, and 
we agreed to the Budget Control Act to cut spending and put in place a 
process for additional deficit reduction. The purpose of that 
bipartisan agreement was to move toward serious deficit reduction and 
to give some consistency to the Federal budget so the American people 
would not be threatened with a government shutdown every few months. 
That bipartisan deal sets the levels for next year's discretionary 
spending, which allows Congress to do its jobs and work to allocate 
Federal resources toward investments in jobs, infrastructure, 
innovation, maintaining our commitment to our servicemembers and their 
families, and protecting and supporting the middle-class families and 
so much more.
  That was the agreement we came to. Speaker Boehner shook on it, 
Minority Leader McConnell shook on it, Majority Leader Reid signed it, 
joined many of my colleagues in voting for it, and then President Obama 
signed it into law. It became the law of the land. I would add it is 
binding and replaces and carries more weight than a budget resolution. 
It makes the budget resolutions we are debating today nothing more than 
political theater.
  Senate Democrats fully intend to honor our word and stick to the 
bipartisan budget levels for next year, and Senate Republicans in our 
Appropriations Committee, including the minority leader, recently voted 
to stick to those levels as well. I was disappointed that less than 9 
months after we shook hands on that deal House Republicans turned right 
around and broke it. They put appeasing their extreme base ahead of the 
word they gave to us and the American people. They demonstrated clearly 
that a deal with them isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
  Despite House Republicans reneging on the deal, the Budget Control 
Act is the law. It is signed, and we have so many challenges ahead of 
us as a nation we cannot afford to relitigate bipartisan deals every 
time members of the extreme end of the Republican Party make some noise 
in a meeting.

[[Page 6857]]

House Republicans are not only trying to relitigate that Budget Control 
Act, they want to pretend it never happened.
  As part of that deal, in addition to the $1 trillion in discretionary 
spending cuts, a joint select committee on deficit reduction was formed 
to reduce the deficit by at least an additional $1.2 trillion. In fact, 
if they couldn't come to an agreement, the bipartisan Budget Control 
Act put in place automatic spending cuts, or sequestration, which 
spread evenly across defense and nondefense spending.
  We all knew at the time the sequestration was not the ideal way to 
reduce spending, but we wanted to have that in place so that painful 
cuts were prominent and would help both sides to come to a bipartisan 
compromise.
  I was called on by the majority leader to cochair that committee with 
Republican Representative Jeb Hensarling, and I am proud of that 
committee's hard work. I was extremely disappointed in the end that 
committee was not able to come up with a bipartisan deal.
  I want to be clear--because this is very relevant today--we weren't 
able to get a deal because Republicans refused to even consider tax 
increases on the wealthiest Americans. The talks fell apart around that 
issue and that issue alone.
  I came to the table with many of my colleagues with proposals for 
serious compromises on spending and a willingness to move forward with 
smart changes to strengthen entitlements. We knew many of these 
compromises would be painful, but we were willing to put them forward 
to get to a bipartisan deal and a balanced deal. But as much as we 
offered, we couldn't get our Republican colleagues to give an inch when 
it came to taxes on the wealthiest Americans and the biggest 
corporations even though the rich are paying the lowest tax rates today 
in generations. They were fundamentally opposed to any plan that would 
call on the wealthy to pay a penny more in taxes.
  In poll after poll Americans overwhelmingly say they want to see a 
balanced approach to tackling the deficit and debt that puts everything 
on the table, including revenue. Every single bipartisan group that has 
come together to tackle this--from Simpson-Bowles, Domenici-Rivlin, 
Gang of 6--has included a balanced approach that reduces spending and 
raises revenues. That is the only real and fair way to tackle this 
challenge, and it simply doesn't make any sense to solve this problem 
with cuts alone.
  So as we watch House Republicans rolling back the automatic cut they 
don't like and acting as though the bipartisan Budget Control Act never 
happened, I say to them today what I said to the Republicans in the 
joint select committee: We will not allow the debt and deficit to be 
reduced on the backs of our middle-class and most vulnerable Americans 
without calling on the wealthiest to contribute as well. It is not 
fair, it is not what the American people want, and it is not going to 
happen. We are facing these automatic cuts because Republicans continue 
to protect the rich above all else. Unless that changes before the end 
of the year, our country is going to have to face the consequences of 
intransigence.
  Republicans in the House of Representatives are not only acting as 
though the BCA never happened, they are highlighting the moral and 
intellectual bankruptcy of a party that allows itself only to think in 
terms of cutting, shrinking, eliminating, and never in terms of 
investing and growing and fairness. The legislation they passed would 
roll back sequestration for next year by simply taking funding from 
programs middle-class families and the most vulnerable Americans count 
on and shifting it to defense. They want all of the deficit reduction 
from the Budget Control Act without any bipartisan compromise or shared 
sacrifice.
  Since they refuse to consider raising taxes on the wealthy, the only 
way they can increase spending on defense is by absolutely devastating 
critical government investments in our families and in our future.
  According to a report from the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, the House legislation would not only roll back 
sequestration on the defense side, it would increase overall defense 
spending by over $8 billion.
  And while they may say they are rolling back the automatic cuts on 
non-defense spending too, this report shows House Republicans are 
slashing these programs almost three-quarters of the way to what would 
be cut under sequestration.
  Since they need to find a way to pay to undo the automatic cuts they 
don't like, their bill cuts even deeper into programs millions of 
families across America count on.
  According to that same CBPP report, the Republican legislation would 
cut food assistance to the most vulnerable families, Medicaid, the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, and block grants for States to run 
programs to help families and workers get back on their feet.
  So House Republicans are actually increasing defense spending, 
protecting the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations, and 
throwing the entire burden on the backs of middle class families and 
the most vulnerable Americans.
  That's not just bad policy, it is simply wrong.
  If Democrats were willing to accept a wildly imbalanced deficit 
reduction plan to avoid the automatic cuts, we would have done that in 
the Joint Select Committee. But we didn't then, and we won't now.
  Any bipartisan deficit reduction plan, whether the goal is to reduce 
the deficit in a better way than the sequesters or to put our country 
on sound fiscal footing over the long term, has to be balanced. It has 
to be fair. And it has to work for middle class families across 
America. That means responsibly cutting spending. It means making sure 
entitlement programs that seniors and the most vulnerable families 
depend on are strengthened and secured for the next generation. It 
means examining where we can save money on the defense side. And it 
means raising revenue from the wealthiest Americans and biggest 
corporations who are paying close to the lowest levels in generations.
  Because budgets aren't just numbers on a page. They aren't just about 
charts and formulas and trajectories. Those are important but budgets 
are also about real people, with real lives. They are about investments 
in our families, our communities, and our economy. They are about the 
kind of country we want to be now and in the future. And above all, 
budgets are about the choices and priorities of a nation.
  Democrats are willing to make compromises. We are willing to have 
those tough conversations and come to the difficult agreements we know 
are necessary. We are willing to put everything on the table.
  And I truly hope Republicans decide they are ready to do the same and 
end their commitment to protecting the rich from paying a penny more in 
taxes. Because while so many families continue to struggle, I think 
it's more than fair to ask the richest Americans to pay their fair 
share.
  While we scour programs that so many middle class families rely on 
for fat to trim, I think it makes sense to scour the tax code in just 
the same way and eliminate the egregious loopholes that the wealthiest 
Americans and biggest corporations take advantage of.
  And while oil and gas companies are making record profits, I think it 
just makes sense to end the handouts they get every year from U.S. 
taxpayers.
  So Democrats stand ready to work with Republicans on this. But what 
House Republicans did last week has moved us in the wrong direction, 
and makes it even harder to get to the bipartisan deficit reduction 
deal they say they want.
  So I urge them to end this partisanship.
  Stop allowing a small and extreme minority of members to dictate 
policy for an entire chamber of Congress. Stop protecting the 
wealthiest Americans from sharing in the sacrifices so many Americans 
are making every day, and to truly work with us to get this done for 
the American people.

[[Page 6858]]

  As soon as that happens, Democrats stand ready to get to a balanced 
and bipartisan deal.
  The choices we make as a body in the coming months will affect every 
single American. As we have said from the start, we will put everything 
on the table, but that word is ``everything.'' We cannot come to a 
solution in America unless everybody contributes and there is shared 
sacrifice. That is the principle we have been fighting for, it is the 
one we will continue to fight for, and that is what the American people 
want. I am proud to stand with my party to continue to fight for that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to say that it is stunning to see 
the Republican Party running away from a bill they supported and a deal 
they cut. The deficit reduction deal was led by Senator Conrad. The 
Budget Control Act is the law of the land. Instead they are offering up 
a series of budgets that I believe will destroy this country.
  Why do I say that? Because they destroy the middle class and they 
give to the millionaires and the billionaires. That is a recipe for a 
third world nation, the haves and the have-nots. I hope the American 
people wake up and pay attention because a budget is a statement of who 
we are as a people.
  I was proud to serve on the Budget Committee. I wish I was still on 
there, but I had other options for my State. I decided to leave the 
Budget Committee and go on the Commerce Committee. That is one tough 
committee, and we are going to miss Senator Conrad. His leadership is 
exemplary, and he has explained why the replacement budgets the 
Republicans have offered are unworkable. Some of them don't even make 
any sense.
  This is serious business because one of them did pass the House. Not 
only did it pass the House, but then they passed another law, and we 
call it reconciliation, which is dangerous in what they did. They stood 
with all of their heart, with all of their soul, with all of their 
power and their fervor to fight for the 1 percent. They are fighting 
for the millionaires, the multimillionaires, the billionaires, and the 
trillionaires; that is who they are fighting for. They are giving them 
back an average of $150,000 a year. Over the 10-year period that 
average millionaire can write a big kiss to the Republicans if this 
ever becomes law because they would get back $1.5 million over the 10-
year period.
  How do they pay for this largess? How do they pay for this warm, 
fuzzy hug to the people who have everything? They cut the heart out of 
the middle class. I will give some examples. They would allow student 
loan rates to double so students would have to pay not a 3-percentage 
point interest rate on their student loans but over 6 percent.
  They will cut the heart and soul out of America's infrastructure. Did 
you ever look at the construction industry lately? Well, there are 1.4 
million unemployed construction workers. We need to make sure they are 
building the roads, highways, and the 70,000 bridges that are 
deficient. Half of our roads don't meet the standards. We need to 
rebuild America, as the President said--not Afghanistan, not Pakistan. 
Thank you very much. Iraq? The blood of our people is on the ground 
over there. It is time to spend that money here as our President has 
said.
  They continue all that war spending, they add to that war spending, 
and they expect everybody else to stand back and quietly accept a 
doubling of their student loan rate and a cut in the transportation 
program.
  They end Medicare, period. They are going to turn it into a voucher 
system, and our elderly are going to have to negotiate to try and find 
a way to pay for health insurance, and it will cost them thousands of 
dollars more.
  One of these budgets actually cuts Social Security by 39 percent. 
Imagine a Social Security recipient living on $18,000 getting a cut of 
almost 40 percent.
  So this is what they are doing, I say to my colleagues. They 
eliminate the Department of Education. They eliminate the ability for 
many people to pay for their energy assistance in the winters. They 
walk away from alternative energy, which is going to free us from 
foreign oil and make us safer. That is what they do, and they do it all 
in the name of tax breaks for the people in America who--I am very 
proud of them. They made it. In my State, a lot of those folks who have 
made it have written to me and said: Senator, we want everybody to have 
the chance we had.
  The only passion of Republicans is for those who have. They practice 
Robin Hood in reverse. In one of the budgets, they even--I think it is 
the Ryan budget--tax the poorest people. They tax the poorest people. 
They raise taxes on the poorest people, and they cut taxes on the 
richest people. Robin Hood in reverse. Isn't that sweet? Isn't that 
kind? Not. So they bring America to its knees. They walk away from the 
Budget Control Act. Do we know why they don't like it? Because it 
forces spending cuts across the board. I don't like that, but we are 
serious about deficit reduction.
  In my closing remarks I will say this: In the last 40 years, one 
party balanced the budget. In the last 40 years, one party created a 
surplus. That happens to be the Democratic Party and a Democratic 
President named Bill Clinton. How did we do it? We met each other 
halfway. We said that when we are faced with a crisis, we have to put 
everything on the table and everybody makes a little bit of a 
sacrifice. It is no big deal. We ask the people who have the most to do 
a little more, and we find ways to cut spending. That is what we did in 
the Clinton years. Do we know what happened? We created I think 23 
million new jobs. We created 23 million new jobs. We balanced the 
budget, we created a surplus, and now we have to listen to the 
demagogues over there lecture us about how to balance the budget. 
Wrong. We know how to do it. They don't know how to do it. All they 
know how to do is stand up and attack our President when our President 
inherited this terrible deficit from George W. Bush, who took a 
surplus--Bush did--and turned it into deficits as far as the eye can 
see. And we were losing--I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. We were losing how many jobs a month? We were losing 
800,000 jobs a month when our President took over. The country was 
falling apart.
  He saved the auto industry--it is back on top--when others said: Let 
them go bankrupt. He started the job creation. It is not good enough, 
but I will tell my colleagues one thing: If we are going to make it 
better, we better start working together.
  Let's live by the Budget Control Act that is the law of the land, and 
let's use that time to find a long-term solution, as we did in the 
Clinton years.
  Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to make a reference to the Budget 
Control Act. One of my colleagues said we are running away from the 
Budget Control Act. I would suggest that is not accurate. In truth, the 
Budget Control Act was a cap on spending, and the Republicans have 
proposed that we spend less than that, as any economist would tell us 
we need to do because it wasn't sufficient.
  The difficulty arises, however, when we consider what President Obama 
proposed with regard to the Budget Control Act. It is amazing. In 
August President Obama signed the Budget Control Act as an agreement to 
raise the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion in exchange for reducing 
spending by $2.1 trillion. He signed that, it went into effect, and it 
is the current law today. But when he proposed his budget in January of 
this year that we will vote on later today--and I expect it will not 
get a single vote, and it should not--President Obama's budget wiped 
out half of those savings. So $1 trillion of those savings were wiped 
out, and he replaced it with almost--he added more spending in 
addition--Mr. President, I am having a little trouble thinking here.

[[Page 6859]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senate will 
suspend for a moment.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So I think the dramatic event that has gone 
unappreciated is that the President's budget eviscerates the Budget 
Control Act and puts us back on full speed tax and spend.
  I see my colleague Senator Enzi is here, a senior member of the 
Budget Committee who has been involved in so many important issues. He 
is an accountant, a small businessman, and he understands the real 
world and the value of a dollar. I yield to Senator Enzi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the committee 
for all of his work on this issue and the suggestions he has as to the 
importance of what we are doing today.
  I rise today to discuss our Nation's budget situation and the budget 
proposals we will vote on later today. While I am pleased that my 
colleagues have put forth a number of good ideas, this debate is long 
overdue.
  The Congressional Budget Act sets a statutory deadline of April 1 for 
the Senate Budget Committee to report a budget resolution and a 
deadline of April 15 for completion of a congressional budget. Despite 
these statutory deadlines, it has been more than 3 years since the 
Senate passed a budget, and the majority party once again refuses to 
debate this important topic through the normal budget process. We did 
not mark up a budget in the Senate Budget Committee, and we have not 
been given the opportunity to offer amendments to any of the budgets 
that are before us on the Senate floor. That is disappointing.
  With a national debt approaching $16 trillion, and it is hard for me 
to even say $16 trillion--I saw a kid with a t-shirt that said, 
``Please don't tell him what comes after $1 trillion.'' With $16 
trillion in debt, we cannot afford to continue operating without a 
budget that is a blueprint to put the country on a sustainable path in 
both the short term as well as the long term, and we better be looking 
at that long term as well.
  We cannot continue to simply spend money we don't have without a plan 
to get our spending under control. We are so bad on spending that we 
are taking 10 years' worth of revenue to pay for 2 years' worth of 
projects, and those are projects that will continue after that. I don't 
know what we do after the 2 years. How far out can we borrow money that 
may not even come in because it might not even be budgeted? A budget is 
supposed to do just that--it is supposed to put spending under control. 
But instead, for the third year in a row, it looks as if the Senate 
majority will refuse to pass a plan to help fix the fiscal crisis we 
face.
  In the 3 years since the Senate majority passed a budget, our country 
has spent approximately $10.4 trillion. We have accumulated around $4.5 
trillion in gross debt, which translates to an additional $15,000 for 
every man, woman, and child--$15,000 for every man, woman, and child--
which brings it up to about $49,000 total for every man, woman, and 
child. Since we last adopted a budget, we have spent more than $626 
billion on net interest payments to service the debt alone. These are 
unsustainable levels of spending. Yet the majority continues to ignore 
the problem and refuses to take these numbers seriously and consider, 
much less pass, a budget.
  The majority argues that we have a budget in place because of the 
passage of the Budget Control Act, which also governed our spending in 
fiscal year 2011. But if that truly governed what we are doing, why did 
the President even submit a budget to us? If that was the budget, he 
shouldn't have gone to all the effort to put his own budget together. 
But he felt he needed to put a budget together.
  In fiscal year 2011, the government brought in slightly more than 
$2.3 trillion in revenue. At the same time we collected $2.3 trillion, 
we spent $3.6 trillion. In other words, we overspent by $1.3 trillion. 
That is more than 50 percent of the revenue we were expecting. We are 
on pace for another $1 trillion deficit this year. The Budget Control 
Act may include some spending limits, but with record trillion-dollar 
deficits, the Budget Control Act cannot replace an actual budget that 
puts in place long-term spending cuts and helps get our country back on 
the path to balance. Again, if that Budget Control Act really took care 
of everything, the President would not have needed to submit a budget. 
He did.
  I applaud the President for appointing a deficit commission. We tried 
to pass that as a bill. It came close, but it didn't make it. He saw 
there was a need, and he appointed a commission. The commission was 
cochaired by Erskine Bowles and Senator Alan Simpson. They painted a 
pretty bleak picture for our country. More than a year and a half has 
gone by since they painted that bleak picture, and it has gotten worse, 
not better. I really expected at the State of the Union that year that 
the President would have painted the same bleak picture he had been 
handed by the deficit commission. It was scary. It is now scarier. But 
he didn't. Instead, he gave us another stimulus budget. I think if he 
had painted the bleak picture in the State of the Union that was handed 
to him by the deficit commission, if he had painted that same picture 
and not placed a solution out there but painted the picture so America 
would understand where we are with the debt and the deficit--if he had 
done that, he could have come out with a budget that was parallel to 
what Simpson-Bowles had, and I think we would have had a solution over 
a year ago.
  We have a nearly $16 trillion debt that keeps growing. It is 
unaffordable, and we need to make a change. What will happen if we 
don't act and if we don't cut spending? We won't be able to afford the 
military we need. People will have drastically reduced Social Security 
checks. Roads won't be fixed. All of our money will go toward paying 
interest on the debt.
  People shouldn't doubt that this is real. There were riots in the 
streets in Greece when their government was forced to deal with the 
realities of debt. In the United States, we owe $49,000 for every man, 
woman, and child. In Greece, they only owe $39,000 and had to make 
drastic cuts, and they had riots in the streets. Now they have stepped 
back with the recent elections and are trying to turn away from the 
reality of their debt. Does that sound familiar?
  I have news for my colleagues. Our debt per person, as I mentioned, 
is more than Greece's debt per person. It is more than Italy's debt per 
person. In fact, the United States owes more than all of the Euro 
countries and the United Kingdom put together.
  My Republican colleagues and I have put forth a series of budgets 
that would help to improve the fiscal situation. I drafted legislation 
that would reduce spending by 1 percent per year until we reach 
balance. By reducing spending by 1 percent, we can achieve balance by 
fiscal year 2017. That is a 1-percent reduction per year to 2017, and 
most of the people I have talked to--and I have talked to a lot of 
people in Wyoming and some other places around the country--have said 1 
percent is not bad. One percent is definitely not bad if we compare it 
to the possibility of a 19-percent cut when we step off the cliff.
  The House of Representatives passed a budget last year that cut 
spending by $5.8 trillion. This year the House passed a second budget 
that would reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion, in comparison to the 
President's budget over the next decade, which does nothing to improve 
the short- or long-term economic outlook of the country. In fact, 
President Obama's budget would make things worse.
  Senator Toomey has put together a detailed budget plan that would 
balance the budget within 8 years. It would enact corporate tax reform, 
and it would adopt important changes to the entitlement programs that 
are the drivers of the Nation's unsustainable debt.
  Senator Paul has put forth a budget that would balance within 5 
years. Of course, it eliminates four departments and reduces spending 
by $8 trillion over

[[Page 6860]]

the next 10 years. It seems radical, but we are facing a cliff, and he 
is willing to put a budget out there.
  Senator Lee has also introduced a budget that balances our budget by 
fiscal year 2017 by cutting spending by $7.1 trillion over the next 10 
years, and it, too, reforms Medicare and Social Security.
  Why do we have to reform Medicare? Well, in the health care reform 
bill we took $\1/2\ trillion out of Medicare. It was already going 
broke but, don't worry, we put in a special panel that will tell where 
cuts can come from each and every year, and if we don't suggest 
different cuts, those go into effect without a vote of the U.S. Senate. 
The only places they can cut are doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, 
home health care, and other providers. If you do not have a doctor, I 
do not think you have much medical care.
  There are going to have to be reforms in Medicare. We have already 
forced that. For Social Security, there are not as many people working 
now as will soon be on Social Security, and that creates problems. I do 
not agree with everything that is included in these budgets I have 
mentioned, but I want to commend my Republican colleagues for making 
tough choices and putting forth solutions.
  While they have been doing that, President Obama and the Senate 
majority have ignored the problem and refused to acknowledge the need 
to cut spending. They have demonized Republicans and suggested it is 
our intention to harm seniors, poor people, and children. One 
advertisement showed a picture of House Budget Chairman Ryan pushing an 
elderly woman off a cliff. That kind of rhetoric does not help 
anything, that rhetoric is over the top, while their solutions have 
been nonexistent.
  Last year, President Obama's budget was such an empty proposal that 
it failed by a vote of 0 to 97 in the Senate. In the House this year, 
his latest budget failed by a vote of 0 to 414. I suspect it may face 
the same fate when it is considered later today--the same one they 
voted on. Not a single Member of either party was willing to support 
the President's budget proposal. How is that for leadership?
  In some of the countries that have a parliamentary form of 
government, they have heard about these votes and are terribly shocked 
because in their country it would call for a special election and a new 
Prime Minister.
  We will be voting on five budgets later today--four from Republican 
Members and President Obama's budget. Absent from the discussion is a 
budget produced by the Senate majority that is shirking their 
responsibility to govern.
  We are in too serious a situation to continue ignoring the budget 
problems we face. At a time when the national debt breaks down to more 
than $49,000 for every person in Wyoming and across this country, we 
cannot afford to continue business as usual. We cannot continue punting 
the tough decisions simply because the tough decisions might impact our 
reelection campaigns. The decisions that are painful today will be even 
more painful in the future.
  We talk about pay-fors here when people want to do a new program or 
continue an old program with additional expenses, but we better start 
including the debt. Our debt is greater than the value of everything we 
produce in this country in a year. That is the gross national product. 
The debt is greater than the gross national product. There are a lot of 
stories about what happens when your debt gets greater than the gross 
national product, and none of them is good.
  I have heard from a lot of people in Wyoming about the national debt 
and the lack of a budget for more than 3 years. While they have 
differing viewpoints on the best solution, they have one common 
message: Do something. Do something, and do it as soon as possible. I 
am concerned that, after votes, we will end up in the same place we 
started--without a budget and without a fiscal plan to get our Nation's 
debt and deficit in check. I do not know about you, but it is keeping 
me up nights.
  Some of my colleagues have offered plans to make that happen. Those 
who control the Senate appear content to sit on the sidelines and 
criticize. While that happens, we continue to add trillions of dollars 
to our national debt. I would encourage my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle to think about what that means to future generations and 
join us in finding a plan to fix our fiscal woes.
  I know that is what they are thinking about because I have been in 
meetings off of the Hill where they have talked about this same thing. 
But we have to solve it; we cannot just talk about it. We cannot give 
it lip service when we are off of the floor and excuse it when we are 
on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, before Senator Enzi leaves the floor, he 
made reference to the fact that in the European parliamentary system, 
when a Prime Minister proposes a budget that fails, that would be cause 
for collapse of the government and a new election.
  He also correctly recalled how the deficit commission that was 
appointed by President Obama came back with a number of recommendations 
that would have gone far farther than the President's budget in dealing 
with our debt course.
  But I would ask the Senator about that moment he mentioned, after the 
debt commission reported, when the President came before the joint 
session of Congress to give the State of the Union. Was the Senator 
surprised and disappointed that the President virtually ignored the 
debt commission and did not take the opportunity to explain to the 
whole audience of the American people that we are on an unsustainable 
course that could lead to financial catastrophe?
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I was both surprised and disappointed. I 
thought he had a unique opportunity, and it had been handed to him on a 
platter that he designed. He appointed these people, and they put a lot 
of hours into it, including the Senator from North Dakota, who is here 
on the floor, and came up with a plan. It was not a pleasant plan by 
anybody's imagination. It was an important plan by everybody's--well, 
evidently not everybody or we would have adopted it by now. But it had 
some critical things in there that should be taken care of, that should 
be considered in a budget, and should have leadership coming from the 
White House. That is where leadership on budgets happens.
  I remember being in the Wyoming legislature. We have a requirement 
that you have to balance the budget each and every year, and we do 
that. If you find out there is going to be a deficit before the 
legislature meets--and they only meet for 20 days in the budget year--
if you know about it before that time, then the legislature has to make 
those cuts. One of the things I noted was when we made the cuts, the 
people in the administration picked out something that was painful and 
made that cut so the constituents out there would say: Oh, that really 
hurt. Those stupid legislators picked the wrong things. Well, it was 
not the legislators who picked the wrong things. It was the people in 
charge of each of those trying to make sure the legislature felt pain.
  If that deficit is noted outside of the time of the few days that the 
legislature meets, then the Governor has to make the cuts. Virtually 
everybody in the administration worked for the Governor. So when he 
made the cuts, they took the priorities and they chopped off the lowest 
priorities, so it was not noticeable around the State, and it works out 
well. That is leadership. That is tough leadership because the Governor 
does not like to have to be the one who is held up for all the scrutiny 
of what is spent.
  That is what the President has to do. That is the President's job, to 
get this budget back in balance. There are some examples around the 
world where, when they put the budget on a path to balancing, the 
economy comes up.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. ENZI. That gives people a little bit of confidence of what can 
happen. Right now, there is not a lot of confidence around this 
country, so the

[[Page 6861]]

economy is dropping. But a good budget, that follows a plan, that gets 
us in fiscal stability, would make a huge difference for this country 
and stimulate business.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I could not agree more. I do believe the debt course we 
are on, which is unsustainable--every expert and the witnesses who come 
before the Budget Committee on which Senator Enzi and I serve have told 
us it is unsustainable, and if we get off of it and tighten our belts 
and do things such as Governor Bentley in Alabama is doing, Governor 
Christie has had to do, Governor Brown is now facing in California--
they let that State go so far out of control, it is going to be 
difficult to bring it back--but they have to make tough choices. If we 
do that, I believe we will get some positive impact on the economy from 
the confidence that restores.
  I say to Senator Conrad, I see Senator Lieberman is here. I would be 
willing to yield if you are ready to use some time now.
  Mr. CONRAD. Could I say to my colleague, we have 17 minutes left on 
this side. We have four Senators left to speak. The Senator has, I 
think, probably 54, 53 minutes left--something like that.
  So I say to Senator Lieberman, if you could take about 4 minutes, if 
that would work for you.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I was hoping for 4 \1/4\ minutes. OK. I will do my 
best.
  Mr. CONRAD. Sold.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will yield 4 minutes to the Senator 
from our side.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. SESSIONS. He will have a flat 8 minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. That is very generous of my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota 
and the Senator from Alabama.
  I have been listening to some of the statements that are being made. 
They are quite sincere. They are quite interesting. But I am afraid, in 
the end, they are not going to signify very much except good 
intentions.
  We have ourselves in a position here where we all know the country 
has a terrible problem. We are spending a lot more than we are bringing 
in. The simplest way to explain it is, the last time I looked--I think 
I am still close on this--revenues of the Federal Government are about 
15 or 16 percent of gross domestic product and the spending of the 
Federal Government is about 25 percent of gross domestic product. There 
you have a yawning, enormous deficit, which adds up now to a long-term 
debt of over $15 trillion.
  We cannot go on like this and be a great country. We cannot go on 
like this and have any hope of economic recovery. I happen to agree--I 
should say in gratitude for the extra time Senator Sessions has given 
me--I happen to agree with the last thing he said. I think--and I am 
not alone; I think some people on both sides feel this--the best thing 
we can do for our economy and economic growth is to adopt a bipartisan 
long-term program that will reduce and hopefully eliminate our debt. 
Why? Because it will restore confidence in the American economy.
  We all know that jobs do not come from government. They should not 
come from government or in government. Jobs that people want, need, 
come from the private sector. The last time I looked, the private 
sector--American business--was sitting on somewhere between $2 trillion 
and $3 trillion of liquid assets that they are not spending. Why aren't 
they spending it? They have very little confidence in the future--not 
just confidence about how the economy is going to be, but what we are 
going to do, what the government is going to do.
  I think if we adopted a long-term bipartisan debt reduction program 
that gave them some sense of security about what taxes and spending 
policies were going to do for some years ahead, they would start to 
invest that $2 trillion to $3 trillion again, and that would create 
hundreds of thousands of jobs that people desperately need, who are 
trying so hard to get back to work.
  Look, basically we know what we have to do to make this happen. To 
state it bluntly, it has to be a combination of tax reform and 
entitlement reform. We have to raise revenues so they get back up to 
18, 19, 20 percent and we have to bring spending down--most of the 
spending increases are coming from entitlements--to about 18 or 19 
percent of GDP so we can be in balance. It is not very mysterious how 
we are going to do this. But the political will is not there now to 
make those tough decisions.
  Today is a classic moment. We have these budget resolutions that are 
before us as a matter of privilege. They are privileged matters. I have 
wanted to vote to proceed to some of them just to get on the subject 
matter, hoping that maybe the door would be opened for direction to 
various committees to come back with long-term solutions, as I have 
talked about.
  We all know the Bowles-Simpson model is the one we are going to 
eventually get to. The question is, how close do we get to the fiscal 
cliff--or has our country gone over the cliff, falling down--and, 
finally, we rush in here and in a panic rescue it with something like 
Simpson-Bowles?
  The closest Senate proposal that would do what we need to do is the 
one my friend from North Dakota has tabled in the Budget Committee. I 
wish we could vote on it. I do not know how many votes we would get, 
but I wish we could at least start the process.
  I know everybody says we are going to come back after the election 
and there is going to be a burst of courage, I guess because the 
election is over, and we are going to do the Simpson-Bowles tax reform 
and entitlement reform. What I am sort of hearing in the wind around 
here is, do not count on it. I hope so. Senator Conrad and I, it is 
going to be our last couple of months on this particular stage. There 
is nothing I know he would like more to be part of, and I can tell you 
nothing I would like more to be part of, than doing a bipartisan, long-
term debt reduction program.
  But I am fearful that it is asking an awful lot of the system in a 
short period of time, and the tendency will be to protect us from 
falling off the cliff by extending everything that is going to expire 
at the end of the year: stopping the sequestering, stopping the end of 
the Bush tax cuts. I hope I am wrong. I know there are some bipartisan 
groups that I have been part of that are working to get ready for that 
point.
  That is important work, because it cannot spring out of nowhere. But 
our country's future is at stake, the future of the greatest economy in 
the history of the world, because of our irresponsibility is the only 
thing I can say, and we have been part of it. I take blame for part of 
it. We are not doing what the country needs us to do.
  I am going to vote against the motions to proceed, because each of 
them, the proposals before us do not achieve anything near what we need 
to do in terms of a balance--entitlement reform, tax reform.
  I do want to say one other thing which I hope we can get to soon. To 
say the obvious, but sometimes it is important to say it, the existing 
budget process has broken down. It does not work. It is not related to 
the reality of the economic or political times we are in. So the budget 
process does not work. Let me cite a couple of statistics. Not since 
early in 2009 has the Congress managed to actually pass a real annual 
budget resolution. I know the Budget Control Act does some of the 
things a budget resolution would do, but not all of them, and it does 
not do what the Budget Reform Act of 1974 called on us to do.
  Listen to this. Only four times in the last 35 years--four times in 
35 years--have the appropriations bills been completed prior to the 
beginning of a new fiscal year. What business or what other government 
entity could operate like that?
  The last time Congress successfully passed all of the appropriations 
bills prior to the beginning of a new fiscal year was 1996. We know it 
because we have been here. Over and over again, Congress slides from 
one temporary

[[Page 6862]]

short-term appropriations bill to the next, months into the fiscal 
year, until we finally throw it into one big hodgepodge, which is not 
responsible government, and a lot gets hidden in it.
  I want to raise the question--I know my friends on the Budget 
Committee have thought about it. I sense my time is up. I wonder 
whether we need a commission to take a look in a short period of time, 
6 months, at the budget process we are following now and make 
recommendations for a new process that will work. Maybe it is a lack of 
political will and an inability to take on these tough issues now, but 
maybe it is the process, and maybe that is something sooner than later 
we can work together on.
  I thank Senators Conrad and Sessions for allowing me to speak as long 
as I was able to.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would share something that was in last 
week's Wall Street Journal, because it deals with an issue that is 
important and not to be dismissed, and that is should we begin to make 
reductions in spending today. I think Mr. Barro provides some real 
valuable insight to that.
  With regard to Senator Lieberman, I do think that the budget process 
can work. It should be able to work. But it will not work if we do not 
try to make it work. Under certain circumstances, it is hard to get a 
bipartisan budget if you do not have everybody together. So maybe it is 
worth examining whether we can make improvements there.
  But Mr. Barro deals with this question. He writes:

       The weak economic recovery in the U.S. and the even weaker 
     performance in much of Europe have renewed calls for ending 
     budget austerity and returning to larger fiscal deficits. 
     Curiously, this plea for more fiscal expansion fails to offer 
     any proof that Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
     Development countries that chose more budget stimulus have 
     performed better than those that opted for more austerity.

  He continues. These are the developed countries in the world, OECD 
countries.
  He goes on:

       Two interesting European cases are Germany and Sweden, each 
     of which moved toward rough budget balance between 2009 and 
     2011--

  That is after the financial crisis--

     while sustaining comparatively strong growth--the average 
     growth rate per year for real GDP for 2010 and 2011 was 3.6% 
     growth for Germany and 4.9% for Sweden. If austerity is so 
     terrible, how come these two countries have done so well?
       The OECD countries most clearly in or near renewed 
     recession--Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain and perhaps Ireland 
     and the Netherlands--are among those with relatively large 
     fiscal deficits.

  The deficits for these six countries for 2010 and 2011 were 7.9 
percent of GDP. Germany and Sweden did not raise taxes but cut 
spending. He goes on to say:

       Every time heightened fiscal deficits fail to produce 
     desirable outcomes, the policy advice is to choose still 
     larger deficits--

  Borrow, tax, and spend. He goes on to say:

       If, as I believe to be true, fiscal deficits have only a 
     short-run expansionary impact on growth and then become 
     negative, the results from following this policy are 
     persistently low economic growth and an exploding ratio of 
     debt to GDP.

  Japan, he goes on to note, ``once a comparatively low public-debt 
nation, apparently bought into the Keynesian message many years ago.'' 
That is the ``spend'' message. ``The consequences for today is a ratio 
of government debt to GDP around 210 percent, the largest in the 
world.''
  I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record 
because I think it helps give us some guidance that at some point 
bringing spending under control and tightening our deficit clearly 
would achieve more financial benefit than continuing to borrow and 
spend or create new taxes that depress the economy.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2012]

Stimulus Spending Keeps Failing--If Austerity Is so Terrible, How Come 
                 Germany and Sweden Have Done so Well?

                          (By Robert J. Barro)

       The weak economic recovery in the U.S. and the even weaker 
     performance in much of Europe have renewed calls for ending 
     budget austerity and returning to larger fiscal deficits. 
     Curiously, this plea for more fiscal expansion fails to offer 
     any proof that Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
     Development (OECD) countries that chose more budget stimulus 
     have performed better than those that opted for more 
     austerity. Similarly, in the American context, no evidence is 
     offered that past U.S. budget deficits (averaging 9% of GDP 
     between 2009 and 2011) helped to promote the economic 
     recovery.
       Two interesting European cases are Germany and Sweden, each 
     of which moved toward rough budget balance between 2009 and 
     2011 while sustaining comparatively strong growth--the 
     average growth rate per year of real GDP for 2010 and 2011 
     was 3.6% for Germany and 4.9% for Sweden. If austerity is so 
     terrible, how come these two countries have done so well?
       The OECD countries most clearly in or near renewed 
     recession--Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain and perhaps Ireland 
     and the Netherlands--are among those with relatively large 
     fiscal deficits. The median of fiscal deficits for these six 
     countries for 2010 and 2011 was 7.9% of GDP. Of course, part 
     of this pattern reflects a positive effect of weak economic 
     growth on deficits, rather than the reverse. But there is 
     nothing in the overall OECD data since 2009 that supports the 
     Keynesian view that fiscal expansion has promoted economic 
     growth.
       For the U.S., my view is that the large fiscal deficits had 
     a moderately positive effect on GDP growth in 2009, but this 
     effect faded quickly and most likely became negative for 2011 
     and 2012. Yet many Keynesian economists look at the weak U.S. 
     recovery and conclude that the problem was that the 
     government lacked sufficient commitment to fiscal expansion; 
     it should have been even larger and pursued over an extended 
     period.
       This new point is dangerously unstable. Every time 
     heightened fiscal deficits fail to produce desirable 
     outcomes, the policy advice is to choose still larger 
     deficits. If, as I believe to be true, fiscal deficits have 
     only a short-run expansionary impact on growth and then 
     become negative, the results from following this policy 
     advice are persistently low economic growth and an exploding 
     ratio of public debt to GDP.
       The last conclusion is not just academic, because it fits 
     with the behavior of Japan over the past two decades. Once a 
     comparatively low public-debt nation, Japan apparently bought 
     the Keynesian message many years ago. The consequence for 
     today is a ratio of government debt to GDP around 210%--the 
     largest in the world.
       This vast fiscal expansion didn't avoid two decades of 
     sluggish GDP growth, which averaged less than 1% per year 
     from 1991 to 2011. No doubt, a committed Keynesian would say 
     that Japanese growth would have been even lower without the 
     extraordinary fiscal stimulus--but a little evidence would be 
     nice.
       Despite the lack of evidence, it is remarkable how much 
     allegiance the Keynesian approach receives from policy makers 
     and economists. I think it's because the Keynesian model 
     addresses important macroeconomic policy issues and is 
     pedagogically beautiful, no doubt reflecting the genius of 
     Keynes. The basic model--government steps in to spend when 
     others won't--can be presented readily to one's mother, who 
     is then likely to buy the conclusions.
       Keynes worshipers' faith in this model has actually been 
     strengthened by the Great Recession and the associated 
     financial crisis. Yet the empirical support for all this is 
     astonishingly thin. The Keynesian model asks one to turn 
     economic common sense on its head in many ways. For instance, 
     more saving is bad because of the resultant drop in consumer 
     demand, and higher productivity is bad because the increased 
     supply of goods tends to lower the price level, thereby 
     raising the real value of debt. Meanwhile, transfer payments 
     that subsidize unemployment are supposed to lower 
     unemployment, and more government spending is good even if it 
     goes to wasteful projects.
       Looking forward, there is a lot to say on economic grounds 
     for strengthening fiscal austerity in OECD countries. From a 
     political perspective, however, the movement toward austerity 
     may be difficult to sustain in some countries, notably in 
     France and Greece where leftists and other anti-austerity 
     groups just won elections.
       Consequently, there is likely to be increasing diversity 
     across countries in fiscal policies, and this divergence will 
     likely make it increasingly hard to sustain the euro as a 
     common currency. On the plus side, the differing policies 
     will provide better data to analyze the economic consequences 
     of austerity.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would share a few thoughts in general 
about where we are. Our colleagues on the Democratic side have said 
they want more taxes. They have not told us what taxes, how much, and 
where they would be. But they have told us that. Senator Conrad has 
said that.
  He has also been open and bold about the need to cut spending. So he 
wants

[[Page 6863]]

more tax increases than I would like and he wants substantial spending 
cuts, but that is his view. He stated it publicly. But I will have to 
say, that is not the position of the Democratic majority in the Senate 
because they have refused to put it on paper.
  Senator Conrad was going to have a Budget Committee mark up. We were 
going to mark up a budget. He was going to lay out a plan. I guess it 
would be somewhat ``Simpson-Bowlesish.'' But it was not offered because 
the leadership and I suppose the members of the Democratic Conference 
agreed that they do not want to be on record. They would rather do like 
last year. And what happened last year? They voted against the Toomey 
budget; they voted against the Ryan budget; they voted against the Rand 
Paul budget; and voted against the President's budget.
  They wiped their hands. They did not vote for anything to cause any 
pain to anybody. And presumably they thought that was better than 
actually being engaged in leading and telling the American people what 
they planned to do to change the debt course we are on. That is the 
deal.
  Well, I would say a couple of things. If I were talking to a group of 
American citizens today, I would say this: Do not send one more dime to 
Washington, DC until they show you a budget, how they are going to 
spend it. I mean, why should they? We get in trouble; we overspend; we 
place the Nation at risk. And all we want to say is: Send more money. 
You cannot cut, we are going to throw people into the streets, and push 
older people off the cliff in a wheelchair.
  No, I do not think so. I think the American people need to hold this 
Congress, this government, to account. They need to say, we are not 
sending you any more money until you get your house in order. And we 
are not paying for hot tubs in Las Vegas. We are not throwing away $500 
million on a Solyndra loan project that never had a chance to succeed 
and was benefiting cronies of the White House. We are not going to pay 
for the TSA to have warehouses filled with millions of dollars in 
equipment not being used.
  You do not have your act together. We want you to get your act 
together. We want to see some management. We want to see some 
leadership. Who is the top manager in America? It is not the chairman 
of the Budget Committee, or the ranking member of the Budget Committee, 
it is the Chief Executive. The President heads the executive branch. 
Every Cabinet member, subcabinet member, sub-sub-sub cabinet member 
works for the President.
  We had a situation where it has become clear that for over a year, 
people illegally in the country earning money are filing income tax 
returns and gaining as much as $4 billion a year in child tax credit 
money, a direct payment from the United States for children who do not 
even live in the country.
  The Inspector General for the U.S. Treasury Department said this 
should have been ended, and the IRS is not ending it. Congress ought to 
pass a law about it. The House has done so. This Senate has not acted. 
Those are the kinds of things that are happening. I would think the 
President of the United States, as soon as he learned that, would say: 
Stop it today. If you care about the money of the American people, if 
you care about the fact that we are now spending about $3.6 trillion 
dollars a year, taking in $2.3 trillion a year, so a deficit of $1.3 
trillion.
  Oh, they say that President Bush increased the deficit. And he did. 
But the highest deficit he ever had was about $450-some-odd billion. 
The last 3 years under President Obama, the deficits have averaged over 
$1.3 trillion a year. Next year, beginning September 30, the next 
fiscal year, it is projected to be over $1 trillion again.
  This is an unsustainable course. We are looking here for some reality 
and leadership. I think it is a stunning, amazing development when we 
have the President of the United States at a time of financial systemic 
crisis and danger who has the opportunity to lead, who does not lead, 
who has an opportunity to tell the American people why we need to 
change the course we are on, the fact that it is going to take some 
belt tightening and some pain and some sacrifice--not so much, but 
some.
  We are going to have to do it. And if we do it, the country will be 
on a good path. We can save this country. We can avoid a debt crisis 
that could happen to us, because indeed our debt per person in America 
is higher than that of Greece, higher than that of any other country in 
Europe. We are in a dangerous area. We need to get off of it. I am 
amazed the President has not led.
  I think it is a development of the most stunning nature that he 
would, as the law requires, submit the budget he submitted. It is 
irresponsible. It did not get a single vote in the Senate last year. It 
went down 97 to 0. It was voted down 414 to 0 in the House this year. I 
suspect in an hour or so it will go down again on the floor of the 
Senate by unanimous vote. That speaks a lot. That says a lot, indicates 
the sad state of affairs which we are in.
  It is deeply disappointing.
  I see Senator Lee from Utah here, who is a new Member of the Senate. 
If Senator Conrad doesn't have an objection, I will yield to him and 
note that Senator Lee campaigned throughout his State. He talked to 
thousands of people. He was elected in this last cycle. He felt the 
mood of the people of his State and America, their concern about the 
debt course we are on. He has worked extremely hard and has laid out a 
proposal that he would like to explain and ask us to support.
  I thank the Senator for his leadership and his commitment and his 
hard work since he has been in the Senate.
  Mr. CONRAD. Might I inquire of Senator Lee, how much time would the 
Senator require?
  Mr. LEE. Ten or twelve minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Can we have an agreement for 15 minutes? Is that 
reasonable?
  Mr. LEE. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. And if the Senator completes his statement before then, 
he can yield back--either way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the true greatness of our Nation lies in the 
power and promise of the American dream. Unfortunately, for many 
individuals and families, this dream has become a national nightmare. 
Without the clear priorities and accountability of a budget, we 
continue to careen toward the economic cliff, with our massive debt and 
trillion-dollar deficits threatening the prosperity of Americans from 
every walk of life. To put it simply, we must change course.
  Restoring the American dream will require more than clever bumper 
sticker slogans. While optimism is an important part of the American 
dream, hope simply is not a strategy for the kind of course correction 
our country desperately needs.
  Doing nothing is no longer an option, although this President and 
this Congress have attempted, by not having a budget, to convince the 
American people that doing nothing is somehow the only option. Ignoring 
our broken entitlement programs, maintaining our complex Tax Code, and 
pretending we don't have a spending problem ensures that our economy 
will never truly recover and that the American dream will not be 
restored.
  The good news for Americans is that many of us do have solutions to 
confront and correct the country's most pressing challenges. In today's 
debate and discussion, the Nation has seen that changing course and 
balancing our budget doesn't have to take 30 years, nor does it have to 
require the kinds of drastic cuts that could devastate America's most 
vulnerable citizens.
  As we conclude this debate, I remind my colleagues of the old adage 
that ``you can make excuses or you can make progress, but you cannot 
make both.'' Given the gravity of our current situation, we should also 
recognize that our present path is unsustainable. A course correction 
is coming; the question we will be held accountable for answering is 
whether that correction comes by choice or as a consequence of making 
excuses and doing nothing.
  The Saving the American Dream Plan, which I have proposed, puts us on

[[Page 6864]]

a sustainable and affordable path toward economic growth. It reforms 
our Tax Code to make paying taxes a simple, transparent, and equitable 
process that regular people can perform on their own. It empowers 
families to save by making savings tax free, which in turn lowers their 
tax burden in a way that helps them and our economy. It establishes a 
single tax rate. It eliminates the payroll tax, helping all Americans--
especially those at the lowest income level--and it abolishes the death 
tax permanently. Under this plan, Americans will no longer be forced to 
navigate the complex web of countless loopholes--for people who don't 
need them--contained within a tax code that is longer than the works of 
Shakespeare.
  In addition to placing an enormous burden and imposing immense 
uncertainty on our people, such a tax system hides the true size and 
cost of government. This plan is simple, and it provides certainty for 
individuals and for businesses.
  Opponents of reform will play petty politics and prey on false fears 
about the government's ability to help the helpless. They claim that 
any course correction in entitlement or social service spending will 
damage the social safety net. The truth is that doing nothing will 
absolutely and completely destroy the safety net. If we do not change 
course, the collapse of safety net services for our most vulnerable 
Americans is certain, and it is certain to hurt most those who have the 
least.
  This plan saves Social Security by transitioning to a real insurance 
plan that provides income security for seniors and prevents sudden 
poverty as a result of unforeseen events. The affluent elderly, such as 
Warren Buffett, will see a decrease in benefits. This plan will allow 
people like Mr. Buffett to help in a way that is actually good for our 
economy and job creators.
  The Saving the American Dream Plan also ends the government takeover 
of health care and puts dollars and decisions back into the hands of 
families and individuals and their doctors. Just like school choice 
allows parents to make sure their kids don't get stuck in a failing 
school system, this plan ensures families don't get stuck in a failing 
health care system.
  Finally, this plan acknowledges that we have a spending problem and 
works to reduce the size of government, eliminate waste, lower the 
future burden on taxpayers, encourage productive economic activity, and 
enhance individual liberty and choice. It reins in spending by a total 
of $9.6 trillion over 10 years when compared to President Obama's 
budget and by $7.1 trillion as against the CBO baseline.
  Supporters of the status quo will have every excuse as to why this 
budget or that budget won't work, but now is the time to stop making 
excuses and start making progress. Today we will vote on five budget 
proposals, but this is only the beginning of the discussion. I can say 
confidently that Republicans have done a tremendous amount of work to 
craft proposals to begin to change our course and move our country in 
the right direction, in a sustainable direction.
  The President's budget reflects the status quo: Do nothing, keep our 
complex Tax Code and broken entitlement programs, and ignore spending. 
As for Senate Democrats, for 3 straight years they have refused to 
participate in this discussion except to criticize ideas they don't 
like. Leadership is what leadership does. For the past 1,113 days, our 
country has suffered from a lack of leadership.
  I ask my colleagues, if you cannot vote for these budget plans today, 
will you at least do the right thing for the country and put aside 
election-year politics, show true leadership, and work with us to 
explore and implement real solutions? We cannot stand by the status 
quo. We cannot decide by default to do nothing. The American people 
expect more, and they deserve better.
  We need every American to join us in finding the solutions that will 
enable us as a nation to change course. The Saving the American Dream 
Plan is about empowering individuals to define their own dream and 
ensuring they have every opportunity to make that dream reality.
  This is the greatest civilization the world has ever known--not 
because government made it great but because Americans continually 
reject the status quo, choose to change course when needed, and demand 
economic freedom, while ensuring individual liberty and the right to 
pursue happiness.
  This budget preserves the clear priorities and accountability we must 
have to jump-start the economy, create real jobs, strengthen the safety 
net, and restore the American dream.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I would like to echo what so many of my 
colleagues have already explained: that voting on a budget today would 
serve no purpose. We keep hearing from our friends on the other side of 
the aisle: ``We haven't passed a budget in a thousand days.'' While 
this is technically true, this is a technicality without a difference, 
and ignores one essential detail: we passed something else which, for 
all intents and purposes, accomplishes exactly the same thing as a 
budget the Budget Control Act of 2011.
  First let's look at what a budget resolution actually is. According 
to the Congressional Research Service, a budget resolution:

     sets forth aggregate levels of spending, revenue, and public 
     debt. It is not intended to establish details of spending or 
     revenue policy and does not provide levels of spending for 
     specific agencies or programs. Instead, its purpose is to 
     create enforceable parameters within which Congress can 
     consider legislation dealing with spending and revenue.

  A budget resolution is a document intended to guide Congress, and 
never goes to the President for his signature. The Budget Control Act 
actually went much further than a budget resolution--it actually set 
spending caps for the next 10 years and put them into law--a law signed 
by the President. The spending caps alone produce $900 billion of cuts. 
In addition, the Budget Control Act created the Super Committee and, 
because the committee failed to produce a deficit reduction plan, the 
Act calls for automatic cuts--through a so-called ``sequestration''--of 
an additional $1.2 trillion.
  So Congress has passed over $2 trillion in spending cuts--the biggest 
package of spending cuts in American history. Yet some of my colleagues 
are now calling on Congress to also pass a budget resolution, despite 
the fact that the Budget Control Act has the force of law, and has 
spending caps, whereas a budget resolution has none of that and in 
fact, the Budget Control Act states clearly that it ``shall apply in 
the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget.
  In addition, the Budget Control Act is something that we all agreed 
to. This legislation passed the Senate and the Republican-controlled 
House with wide margins. And this was not a deal that we passed years 
ago that we have somehow forgotten about--we passed the Budget Control 
Act less than 10 months ago. These budget resolutions diverge greatly 
from the deal that we all agreed on. We passed that legislation to 
avoid a debt default, to give us some certainty. But here we are 10 
months later, rehashing much of the same debate.
  Going through the motions of considering a budget resolution would 
not be a productive use of our time. Procedural rules require that we 
spend up to 50 hours on a budget resolution. And on top of that, they 
force us into a ``vote-a-rama'' on all amendments that are offered. So 
that means that we would lose a week or 2 on an exercise that is moot 
because we already have budget caps. That is time we would not have to 
focus on things that will provide needed help to my Minnesota 
constituents: creating jobs, helping small businesses, keeping interest 
rates low on student loans, and passing a long-term highway bill.
  But instead, the minority is insisting that we spend precious time 
debating whether or not we should pass a budget resolution. And so here 
we are with five pending budget resolutions, and it is hard to tell 
which among them is the most detrimental to our country, because they 
are all very dangerous.
  Senator Paul's proposal eliminates the U.S. Departments of Education,

[[Page 6865]]

Energy, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development and turns important 
safety net programs like child nutrition and Medicaid into block 
grants, resulting in their funding being slashed.
  Most of the proposals fundamentally change Medicare from a program 
that guarantees health care to seniors to one that gives seniors some 
money--but not enough money--to buy health insurance in the private 
market. This breaks the promise we have made to Americans--that if they 
work hard and pay into the system, their health care will be covered 
when they retire.
  Yet these massive cuts to programs which benefit millions of 
Americans seem designed to bankroll new tax cuts that benefit only the 
wealthiest few. The Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's joint 
Tax Policy Center estimates that Senator Toomey's proposal gives people 
making more than a million dollars a year an average tax cut of 
$92,000. And that plan looks reasonable compared to Senator Paul's, 
which not only cuts the top tax rates in half for wealthy Americans but 
increases taxes on working families.
  And all the while, these plans would sacrifice programs that assist 
children, seniors, and the poor in favor of those tax giveaways to the 
wealthy. That is how these plans can be summarized. If there were a 
reason to vote on these proposals, which I do not think there is, then 
they would all deserve our full-throated opposition.
  But, as we have pointed out repeatedly, passing a budget resolution 
is simply not needed after we have already passed spending caps in the 
Budget Control Act. That would be about as productive as asking for 
someone to draft up blueprints after they already had built your house.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, our Nation faces enormous and worrisome 
fiscal challenges. There is no question we must reduce our budget 
deficit in the medium-term and prepare for a longer-term future in 
which an aging population stresses Medicare and Social Security funds. 
And we face, at the beginning of January, the prospect of automatic, 
unprioritized, and unwise budget cuts that would do tremendous harm to 
just about every program in the government, from domestic programs to 
our military, and would in the process threaten our economic recovery.
  The way to address those enormous challenges is by coming together to 
address the sources of our budget deficit. The solutions must include 
prudent, prioritized spending cuts. They will undoubtedly include 
reforms to entitlement programs to ensure their long-term viability. 
And, as just about any objective observer has repeatedly pointed out, 
the solutions must include restoration of revenues lost to the Treasury 
through unjustified tax cuts for the wealthiest and unjustified tax 
loopholes.
  Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to address these 
areas--even in painful ways that have a real impact on programs about 
which we feel strongly. President Obama has repeatedly reached out to 
Republicans in trying to craft a bipartisan agreement that deals with 
spending, entitlements and revenues. Senator Conrad and many others on 
this side of the aisle have said they will work with our Republican 
colleagues to deal comprehensively with the deficit.
  Rather than seeking compromise, Republicans seem determined to draw 
uncompromising lines in the sand. Today we will vote on extreme budget 
proposals that would sacrifice vital programs like education, 
transportation and research in order to protect tax breaks for 
millionaires and billionaires.
  The Republican proposals before us today demonstrate that our efforts 
to deal constructively with the deficit have so far fallen on deaf 
ears. Rather than offer prudent, thoughtful spending cuts, these 
proposals would gut programs that Americans have repeatedly told us to 
preserve. Rather than recognize the obvious fiscal reality that revenue 
must be part of the equation, these proposals demonstrate a continued, 
ideologically motivated refusal to even consider what must obviously be 
part of any serious attempt to address the deficit. Rather than reform 
entitlement programs so we can maintain our commitment to seniors, 
these proposals would upend that commitment.
  Perhaps the clearest statement of all of Republican intentions is the 
budget passed in the House, one of the proposals we will vote on today. 
This budget eliminates the decades-long guarantee of health care for 
our seniors, replacing Medicare with a voucher program that would cause 
skyrocketing out-of-pocket costs for seniors.
  There is more. The Ryan budget proposes to cut billions and billions 
from domestic programs, but gives us no specifics as to how those cuts 
would be accomplished. It proposes almost no specific spending cuts, 
though it promises massive savings. We can see just how devastating 
these cuts would be if we assume, in the absence of specific proposals, 
that they would be distributed evenly across the budget. If that were 
the case, we would lose more than $100 billion in funding over the next 
decade for science, including the search for new cures and other new 
technologies. We would have space for 2 million fewer Head Start 
students to get a jump on their education. More than 9 million college 
students would lose $1,000 in Pell grant funding to afford college.
  This budget would slash spending to educate our children and to train 
our workers. It would cut funding to support new sources of energy and 
to protect our national parks and historic sites, and for environmental 
protection and other natural resource programs. It would slash funding 
to pave our roads and bridges and meet other transportation needs.
  And the Ryan plan does not address what budget experts of all 
ideological stripes tell us we must address: the need for additional 
revenues. Rather than restore revenue, this budget is premised on the 
notion that high-income earners haven't gotten enough in tax cuts--and 
so it slashes the top tax bracket.
  If you are not willing to address revenues, you are not serious about 
addressing the deficit. The Ryan budget and the other Republican 
proposals before us fail that test. I hope we can dispense with these 
proposals and get to the challenging work of dealing with the deficit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Harkin is here, and Senator Harkin 
needs about 4 minutes; is that right?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. On the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-four minutes 46 seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. This might be a useful time to get another consent. If we 
can have Senator Harkin for 4 minutes, how much time does Senator 
Johnson need?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Not more than 10 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. OK. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin speak for 
4 minutes and Senator Johnson for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to address these budget proposals 
in one context. First of all, we have to dismiss the so-called Sessions 
budget that is supposedly the Obama budget--it is not. That is not even 
serious. Beyond that, we have four Republican budgets. Here is the one 
thing people have to keep in mind, especially now: Each one of those 
budgets will double the interest rate on student loans beginning on 
July 1 of this year--every single one of them.
  We were here in the last couple of weeks trying to bring up a bill to 
prevent those interest rates from going up, to keep it at 3.4 percent 
rather than going to 6.8 percent. The Republicans filibustered that. We 
could not even bring it up for discussion, debate, and amending. But 
the Republicans kept saying, oh, they want to keep the interest rate at 
3.4 percent. Well, quite frankly, I don't see how they can say

[[Page 6866]]

that and then vote for each one of these budgets because each one that 
will be voted on in about an hour and a half, if it passes, will double 
the interest rate on student loans on July 1. At the same time, they 
continue to filibuster our bill to even bring it on the floor. My 
friends on the other side of the aisle are telling students across the 
country they don't want to see the interest rate double, but their 
budget has it.
  Our former colleague and now the Vice President of the United States 
Joe Biden, when he was a Senator, said something I think very savvy one 
time: Don't tell me what you value; show me your budget, and I will 
tell you what you value.
  Mr. President, my friends on the other side may say in public that 
they want to prevent the student loan rate hike, but their actual 
budget tells a very different story. Likewise, their ongoing filibuster 
of our Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act tells a different 
story. Again, they have blocked us from proceeding to the bill. If we 
had proceeded, we could have had a serious discussion about how we pay 
for it. They could have offered amendments that we could have voted on. 
Instead, they chose to obstruct the entire process, and yet repeatedly 
on this floor Republicans, one after the other, came up and said they 
want to stop the increase in interest rates from going from 3.4 percent 
to 6.8 percent. Don't tell me what you value; show me your budget. I 
will give them credit for this: They have shown us their budget, and in 
it is a doubling of the interest rate on student loans beginning July 
1.
  I want to be clear that anybody who votes for any one of these 
budgets is voting to double the student loan interest rate on July 1 
regardless of what may be said, regardless of crocodile tears that may 
be shed on interest rates and what is happening. The budgets we are 
voting on today tell the true story: Republicans are willing--not only 
willing, but they are going to, if they vote for these budgets, double 
the interest rates on student loans beginning on July 1. There is just 
no getting around that, and that is a shame.
  We have to stop that interest rate hike on July 1. That is why it is 
important to vote down these proposed budgets this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I ask unanimous consent to speak for no 
more than 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, before I start talking a bit 
about the budget of my friend Senator Lee, I want to respond to the 
comments of the Senator from Iowa in terms of interest rates.
  Instead of talking about student rates, let me talk a little about 
America's average borrowing cost. Certainly, what I have done is delved 
into the budget and taken a look at the history, and from 1970 to 
1999--over that 30-year period--the average borrowing cost in the 
United States was 5.3 percent. By the way, that was when America was a 
far more creditworthy nation, when our debt-to-GDP ratio ranged from 
about 40 percent to 67 percent. Now our debt-to-GDP ratio is over 100 
percent.
  Over the last 3 years our average borrowing cost has been kept 
artificially low, at 1.5 percent. So my concern is by not seriously 
addressing the problem, by not actually passing a real budget that 
starts reining in the growth in government, we are going to go from 
that 1.5 percent and revert back to that average mean borrowing cost of 
5.3 percent. If we do, that 3.8-percent differential would add $600 
billion to $700 billion per year to America's interest expense, and 
that would crowd out 60 to 70 percent of all discretionary spending. 
That is the interest rate that I am concerned about.
  That is the day of reckoning I am concerned about, when global 
investors look at the United States and say: You know what. We are not 
going to loan you any more money. Or what is more likely to occur, they 
will say: We will loan you money but at a far higher rate.
  Having made that statement, I would like to talk a little about the 
budget of my friend, Senator Lee, and the things I like about it. One 
of the things I like to do is take a look at history. I know a lot of 
us say we don't have a tax problem, and we don't. It is not that we tax 
the American public too little, it is that we spend too much. And this 
is some pretty graphic proof.
  This reflects our 10-year spending levels. From 1992 to 2000, the 
Federal Government spent a total of $16 trillion over that 10-year 
period. Over the last 10 years, from 2002 to 2011, the Federal 
Government spent $28 trillion.
  Now, the debate moving forward is--according to the just released 
Obama budget--the President would like to spend $47 trillion over the 
next 10 years. The House budget would spend $40 trillion. I guess what 
I like about Senator Lee's budget is that he would come in and spend 
about $37 trillion and put us on a more aggressive path toward fiscal 
sanity. While we hear about Draconian cuts all the time, one doesn't 
have to be a math major to realize that moving to $37 trillion, $40 
trillion, or $47 trillion is not a cut from $28 trillion. All we are 
trying to do is reduce the rate of growth.
  The other thing I like about Senator Lee's budget can be illustrated 
in terms of this chart, which shows the total Federal debt. I started 
this chart in 1987, the tail end of Ronald Reagan's administration, 
when our total Federal debt was $2.3 trillion. I want to point out that 
it took us 200 years to incur $2.3 trillion. Of course, last year, in 
the debt ceiling agreement, this Congress gave the President the 
authority to increase our debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. We will go 
through that in less than 2 years. That is a problem.
  Of course, if we take a look at President Obama's budget, we can see 
how quickly our national debt has increased. But according to President 
Obama's budget, in the year 2022 our total Federal debt would be $25.9 
trillion, up $10 trillion from what it is today. Senator Lee's budget 
would result in a total debt of about $19.1 trillion. Even more 
importantly, he stabilizes and then reduces a very important metric, 
our overall debt-to-GDP ratio. That is what investors take a look at in 
terms of our creditworthiness.
  The other thing I like about Senator Lee's budget is by 2022 it will 
reduce Federal spending to 17.8 percent of the size of our economy. If 
you are like me and you think the root cause of our economic problem is 
the size, the scope, and all the rules and regulations, all of 
government's intrusion into our lives and the resulting cost of 
government, this is the key metric: How large is the Federal Government 
in relationship to the size of our economy?
  Currently, the Federal Government takes 24 cents of every dollar that 
is generated by our economy. If we add in State and local governments, 
total government in the United States consumes 39.2 percent. Put 
another way, 39 cents of every dollar filters through some level of 
government.
  I don't know about anyone else, but I don't find government 
particularly effective or efficient. To put that in perspective, for 
example, the cost of government for Norway last year--one of the 
European-style socialist nations--was 40 percent. For Greece, it was 47 
percent. Anybody hear of Greece recently? That economic model is 
collapsing.
  This is why Senator Lee's proposal is important. If we take a look at 
spending and revenue generation over the last 50 years, we can see 
spending from 1959 through 2008 averaged 20.2 percent. Over the last 3 
years we have increased that to 24 percent. Revenue generation has been 
18.1 percent over that same time period.
  By the way, as much as our friends on the other side of the aisle 
want to punish success and increase the top marginal tax rates, the 
problem with that is it simply doesn't work. During my lifeline, the 
top marginal tax rates have been 90 percent, 70 percent to 50 percent 
to 28 percent, 35 percent, 39.6 percent, and now back to 35 percent. In 
all that time period the average tax receipts--the maximum amount the 
Federal Government could extract from

[[Page 6867]]

our economy--has averaged very tightly around that mean of 18.1 
percent.
  If we ever have any chance of living within our means, we better get 
Federal spending down to about that level. That is what Senator Lee's 
budget does.
  So, again, I thank my friend Senator Lee, as well as Senator Toomey, 
and Senator Paul for putting forward serious proposals. I thank all 
Republicans in Congress who are actually voting for something because, 
Mr. President, Republicans are proving we are willing to be held 
accountable to the American people by putting a plan on the table and 
showing the American people what we would do to try to get our fiscal 
house in order.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will not take more than a few minutes, as 
I have explained to the senior Senator from North Dakota. I appreciate 
his courtesy, and I ask unanimous consent that my statement be made as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withought objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Leahy are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before he leaves, I want to say that the 
Senator from Vermont has done an incredible job on the Violence Against 
Women Act. He has put together a bipartisan coalition, and I would like 
to second his words that the House pass our bill. It is a careful 
compromise, and it is a delicately crafted compromise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend? How much time does 
the Senator from North Dakota yield to the Senator from New York?
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONRAD. I give the Senator 3 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for the time.
  Again, I want to compliment the Senator from Vermont and agree with 
him and hope we can move the bill forward.
  But, Mr. President, I am here to talk about the budget. All afternoon 
I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle repeat over 
and over that we haven't passed a budget. As my friend from North 
Dakota knows, that is clearly not the case.
  Last August, President Obama signed a budget for this year that 
reduces the deficit by $2 trillion. It is called the Budget Control 
Act. It was passed 74 to 26, bipartisan, with many Republicans voting 
for it on August 2, 2011.
  Despite what we hear on the floor today, after the Budget Control Act 
passed, several Senate Republicans, including Senators Grassley, 
Alexander, and Collins, admitted it constitutes a budget. So watching 
this debate on the Senate floor is a sort of through-the-looking-glass 
experience. We are watching our colleagues call for something they 
acknowledge already happened and they supported. This is nothing more 
than petty politics. We should be focused on jobs and the economy. 
Instead we are forced to spend hours debating something that already 
happened. It doesn't make sense.
  But let's put that aside for a moment and look at the extreme plans 
we are voting on today. The only real differences between the four 
Republican budgets--the only real difference between the four 
Republican budgets--is how quickly they race to end Medicare as we know 
it. The Republican budgets all cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans 
and leave the middle class to foot the bill. They all allow student 
loan rates to double. They all provide tax breaks for millionaires and 
billionaires. And they all put the middle class last instead of first.
  When I first examined the Ryan budget passed by the House GOP this 
year, I thought it was the height of irresponsibility. But now that we 
have seen three other Republican budgets, we know they make the Ryan 
budget almost seem reasonable by comparison, and that is no small feat.
  I have nothing against the wealthy. I am glad they make money. That 
is the America way. God bless them. Many are living the American dream. 
But in order to keep that dream alive and get our country on firmer 
fiscal footing, I think we need a little shared sacrifice. The bottom 
line is any budget that jeopardizes the middle class while filling the 
pockets of the wealthy with greater tax breaks is ultimately untenable 
and will never pass the Senate. While we are certainly open to 
compromise, Democrats will not tolerate an assault on the middle class. 
It isn't fair and it isn't right.
  We hope the coming debate will yield a sound serious agreement. But 
if it doesn't, Democrats are happy to take this contrast of priorities 
into November because we know we have the high ground.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield my remaining time back to my friend 
and colleague from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Budget Control Act is not a budget, 
it is just a containment of spending. A clever attempt was made to make 
it look like a budget, but it is not a budget. If it was a budget, why 
did the President submit a budget this year? Why did the House pass a 
budget? Why were four budgets produced in the House by Democratic House 
Members?
  In today's Politico, an article quotes Senator Lieberman, who just 
spoke and who caucuses with the Democrats.

       I don't think [Democrats] will offer their own budget and 
     I'm disappointed in that.

  Senator Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat, said he would have been 
``impeached'' if he had failed to produce a budget as West Virginia's 
Governor, though he conceded there are differences with the State 
budget process.

       Sure I have a problem with [failing to offer a budget]. As 
     a former governor, my responsibility was to put a budget 
     forward and balance it, so anyone who comes from the 
     executive mindset has a problem with that. I don't care if 
     you're Democrat or Republican.

  ``A problem with that'' means a problem with not having a budget.
  Senator Mark Pryor, a Democrat from Arkansas:

       The budget process is just not working around here. We've 
     had three years with President Obama where we're not able to 
     get a budget resolution passed.

  That 3 years includes this one.
  So we don't have a budget, we have a spending cap. And our Democratic 
colleagues--bless their hearts--have been whining that the House 
proposed a budget that came below the Senate's Budget Control Act caps 
in some areas, so they say that was breaking the budget.
  I would just advise them that when they vote on the President's 
budget--and I assume they will all vote against it; they did last 
year--the President's budget wipes out half the savings in the Budget 
Control Act.
  The President signed the Budget Control Act last August to raise the 
debt ceiling. We agreed to cut spending $2.1 trillion--not nearly 
enough, but we cut that and it was a decent step forward in the right 
direction, and the President proposes a budget this year that takes 
half of it out. Give me a break. There is no sense of wanting to have a 
budget, to adhere to one, and to contain spending. What do they want? 
More taxes.
  The President said, ``The Buffett rule will help stabilize the 
debt.'' That is what the President said; that is, tax increases on the 
rich would help stabilize the debt. Well, the Buffett tax would raise 
about $4 billion a year. This year the deficit will be $1,200 billion, 
not $4 billion. That is not going to fix it. It will be $1,200 billion, 
and the Buffett rule would raise about $4 billion a year. What kind of 
responsible leadership is that, for the President of the United States 
to be traveling this country at a time when we have never faced a more 
significant financial threat to America--we never, ever have been on a 
debt course as dangerous as the one we are on today. It is systemic. It 
is deep. We have to make serious changes, and he goes around saying the 
Buffett rule is going to stabilize the debt? He also said his budget 
last year would lead us to

[[Page 6868]]

balance when the lowest single deficit year in 10 would be a deficit of 
$748 billion.
  So I don't know what kind of leadership we are getting. It is not 
good leadership. It is worse than no leadership because when a budget 
is prepared with great effort by Congressman Paul Ryan in the House, 
and his budget will actually change the debt course of America and 
minimize the pain we all have to suffer and create some growth and 
prosperity, the President invites him over to a conference, sits him 
down there, and then attacks it, and he has been attacking the budget 
ever since. Why is this? Why will not our colleagues support any 
budget?
  I fully expect my Democratic colleagues to vote against all of these 
budgets and not vote for one. Think about that. They will vote against 
four, not vote for one. Well, because you don't have the fingerprints 
on anything that results in cutting spending, nobody that benefits from 
spending is going to be mad with you. Everybody who wants more money 
and doesn't want to have a dime reduced in the take they get from the 
taxpayers' trough and the debt we borrow--they don't have any reduction 
in that, and then they can't be mad at me. But that is not a 
responsible course.
  This is not a little matter. This is what Admiral Mullen, the former 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said just 2 years ago:

       The biggest threat we have to our national security is our 
     debt.

  In an important statement by 10 former Chairs of the Council of 
Economic Advisers, who served in Republican and Democratic 
administrations, they wrote in March of 2011:

       At some point, bond markets are likely to turn on the 
     United States, leading to a crisis that could dwarf 2008.

  Bond markets will turn. That is what they have done on Greece.
  The Simpson-Bowles Commission's Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, in 
testimony to our committee, said:

       This nation has never faced a more predictable financial 
     crisis.

  The same thing as the Council of Economic Advisors said: You are on a 
debt path that is unsustainable.
  Chairman Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve--always cautious 
about what he says--talking about the Congressional Budget Office's 
projections of surging debt year after year, says:

       The CBO projections, by design, ignore the adverse effects 
     that such high debt and deficits would likely have on our 
     economy. But if government debt and deficits were actually to 
     grow at the pace envisioned by this scenario, the economic 
     and financial effects would be severe.

  And I recall at one point he said in his testimony: You see these 
debts being projected out there year after year, surging at this high 
level? You are never going to get there.
  What he meant was that we would have a financial crisis before that 
happened.
  I would say to my colleagues, this is a time of challenge for the 
Senate and the Congress of the United States. Will we rise to the 
challenge and actually do something? We can talk about it. We can have 
secret meetings and secret meetings and secret meetings. That is not 
fixing it. We can have these last-minute decisions, like last summer 
when the government was about to virtually shut down because the debt 
limit had been reached, and reach some secret agreement that is brought 
up on the floor for a vote and is not very well written. Or we can do 
what the law requires. In the United States Code, the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974. It requires that we pass a budget. We can't 
guarantee exactly how it will all come out, but we ought to attempt to 
comply with the law, at least. We haven't attempted to do that.
  I am worried about our future. I am worried about where we are 
heading. And I do think the American people have a right to be upset 
with us. They are not happy with us. They should not be happy with us. 
When their Congress has allowed this country to reach a state where we 
are taking in $2.3 trillion and spending $3.6 trillion, when 35, 40 
percent of what we spend is borrowed money, the American people have a 
right to be unhappy about that. They absolutely do. We are not 
protecting their interests, their children's interests, their future, 
or the economy.
  And it is stunning to me that the leader of the free world, the 
President of the United States, the Chief Executive, isn't pounding 
away at the Congress to bring spending under control and to reduce the 
debt we have. Instead, he seems to never want to talk about it. He only 
talks about investments--more investments.
  In fact, that budget he produced this year, what did it do to the 
spending levels we agreed to last August? Before the budget control 
agreement of last August, the U.S. Government was on path to spend $47 
trillion over 10 years. What it effectively did was it reduced that 
spending to $45 trillion--still substantially more each year than we 
are spending now. There is growth every year under that proposal--too 
much growth, too much debt. But it was a step. So this year when he 
proposed his budget, he proposed spending another $1.4 or $1.5 
trillion, new, on top of that. After he signed the agreement that we 
would cap spending at $45 trillion, this would take spending up to 
$46.6 trillion again, almost $47 trillion, where we were before the 
agreement was reached. Now, that is not responsible leadership. And he 
had a big tax increase. Tax and spend--that is what that budget is. And 
the American people shouldn't be happy with us.
  It was noted also that Senator Harkin said, well, this isn't the 
President's budget, that Senator Sessions offered some joke, or 
something to that matter. But it is the President's budget. It has the 
numbers in it that the President had. They directly reflect the 
President's request. If any Senator wants to come forward and show any 
number we put in there that is different from the President's numbers 
when he laid out his budget, then I would like to see it. Maybe we 
could correct it. But I don't think there is an error. I think we 
scrupulously followed the President's budget proposal request, and when 
people vote on it, they can know they are voting exactly on what he 
proposed. I don't think anybody will dispute the numbers we have in the 
budget.
  Also, I note that some of our Democratic colleagues are not happy 
about having no budget produced by the Democratic side. They feel bad 
about it, and I understand that. But I would have thought we would have 
had some Members come down and complain about it, to say that they 
didn't think the Democratic leadership, the Democratic conference 
should have blocked Senator Conrad and the Budget Committee from having 
a budget, that they should be handling this differently. But we haven't 
had that, so I guess everybody is basically happy on the Democratic 
side not to have to cast any tough votes.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as we come to a conclusion of this 
debate, Senator Harkin said something that was pretty insightful. He 
said: Show me your budget, and I will show you what you value.
  Refuse to show me your budget, I will say, and I can say you are 
refusing to show what is important to you.
  One of the things that has been brought up is the war costs. The war 
on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan has been expensive, no doubt about 
it. Last year the total for both wars over 10 years reached $1.3 
trillion--10 years--both wars. That was the deficit last year alone, 
$1.3 trillion. This year the war costs are declining. The year we are 
in, we are spending $118 billion on the war. Our deficit will be $1,200 
billion. So eliminating all war costs would be less than 10 percent of 
the amount of our deficit.
  I say that so we understand what has happened. Over 50 percent of our 
spending is in mandatory entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid, 
Social Security, food stamps, retirement benefits. Those are huge and 
they are increasing at two, three times the rate of inflation. That is 
what puts us on an unsustainable course.
  The President's budget goes against everything the experts said, 
against the debt commission he appointed, and

[[Page 6869]]

refuses to confront these surging entitlement costs. That is a 
disappointment because we have nothing from the other side on how they 
would deal with them.
  But the Members on this side have offered budgets, and Congressman 
Ryan offered a budget. They do begin to deal with this painful but 
difficult situation concerning the entitlement programs. I note the 
Budget Control Act they have been calling a budget had nothing to do 
with over 50 percent of the budget. It did not deal with those 
expenditures, it did not deal with the entitlements. That is another 
reason it is not a budget. It is a cap on discretionary spending. That 
is all that was. It was a step in the right direction but not a budget 
plan that would help us have a prosperous future.
  This is an important day. I think it will cause the American people 
and all of us in Congress to confront the reality of a danger we face 
from debt. No matter how we vote this day, this next hour--even if we 
vote in what I think is the wrong way--hopefully this whole process 
would have caused all of us to confront the reality of the danger to 
the American Republic, the growing debt.
  I would say from my experience it will be tough to deal with it, but 
I absolutely believe we can. It is not outside of the possibility and 
ability of this country to reverse our course. The kind of cuts we will 
need to have will not be such that will damage in any significant way 
the strength and health of America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would ask Senator Sessions, if I might, 
for 2 additional minutes because of the time Senator Leahy consumed?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate that and will agree to those 2 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
  Mr. President, the place we agree is we have a long-term problem for 
this country that we must address. I attempted to lay before the Budget 
Committee, and did lay before the Budget Committee, the Bowles-Simpson 
plan. It is the one plan that has had bipartisan support. I hope before 
the year is over that we can go back to it because I think it holds the 
greatest potential.
  A key difference Senator Sessions and I have is whether we have a 
budget for this year and next. I believe it is clear we do. The Budget 
Control Act that passed last year says that the allocations and 
spending levels set ``shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as 
for a concurrent resolution on the budget.'' That is for both 2012 and 
2013.
  I believe our Republican friends want to focus on that because they 
do not want to focus on the specifics of their budget plans. Recall, 
the last time they were in charge, when they controlled everything--the 
House and the Senate and the White House--the Republican policies led 
us to the brink of financial collapse. The proposals they are advancing 
today are a return to those failed policies. Remember what happened 
when they were in charge. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month and the 
economy was shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent a year. That is why 
they do not want to focus on the substance of their plans.
  Let's focus on the substance for a moment. Every Republican budget 
ends Medicare as we know it. One Republican budget cuts Social Security 
benefits by 39 percent. Every Republican budget cuts taxes for 
millionaires by at least $150,000 a year. And every Republican budget 
protects offshore tax havens.
  I have shown on the floor many times a picture of this little 
building in the Cayman Islands that claims to be the home of 18,857 
companies. It is not their home. They are not doing business out of 
this little five-story business in the Cayman Islands. They are doing 
monkey business. The monkey business they are doing is avoiding the 
taxes they owe. Every Republican budget protects this scam. That should 
not be allowed to continue.
  I hope my colleagues reject these proposals. I hope we will vote no, 
and then get onto the serious business of a bipartisan plan to get 
America back on track, the Simpson-Bowles plan that I presented to the 
Budget Committee.
  I yield the floor. I believe all time has expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The question is on the motion to proceed to S. Con. Res. 41.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have 1 minute on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the President's budget is now before us. 
Last year it failed in this body 97 to 0. It failed in the House, the 
budget that he offered this year, 414 to 0. I expect it will receive no 
votes today. That is a stunning development for the President of the 
United States in his fourth year in office, to produce a budget for the 
future of our country at a time of fiscal danger, great financial and 
economic danger to our country, to not receive a single vote.
  Maybe somebody will vote for it. Let me tell you why we should not. 
It does not change the debt course. It violates the budget agreement 
the President signed and Congress passed last year, by increasing 
spending over that level by $1.5 trillion. It throws off another $1.8 
trillion in tax increases, essentially using tax increases to offset 
new spending programs, not to pay down the debt. It is the most 
irresponsible budget submitted. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is the budget. This is what Senator 
Sessions has presented as being the President's budget. Do you see a 
difference? This is what Senator Sessions describes as the President's 
budget. This is the President's budget. I think it is readily apparent, 
there is a big difference between the President's budget, which I hold 
in my hands, and what Senator Sessions has presented as being the 
President's budget. This is not the President's budget, so of course we 
are not going to support it. It is not what the President proposed.
  I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 0, nays 99, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]

                                NAYS--99

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

[[Page 6870]]



                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote on the motion to proceed to H. Con. Res. 112.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, at a time when our Nation has never, 
ever faced a deeper, more dangerous systemic debt threat than we face 
today, the Republican House, under the leadership of Congressman Paul 
Ryan, has produced a budget that would change the debt course of 
America, create economic growth, put us on a path to financial 
stability, and do the things that a responsible budget should do. The 
President's budget utterly failed in that regard and has gotten no 
support. This budget will do the job.
  People can disagree with this or that portion of it. I think this 
budget is a historic step in the right direction for this great 
Republic, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, this budget plan, the House Republican 
plan, ends Medicare as we know it. All the while, it provides $1 
trillion of additional tax cuts to the wealthiest among us. It gives 
millionaires, on average, an additional tax cut of $150,000 a year. In 
addition, it cuts health care by $3 trillion and increases the number 
of uninsured in our country by 30 million people.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this budget proposal.
  Mr. HARKIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Does this budget permit the interest rates on student 
loans to double on July 1?
  Mr. CONRAD. It does.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Kirk
      
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote on the motion to proceed to S. Con. Res. 37.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, the vote we are about to cast is on a 
motion to proceed to the budget I have introduced, one of the important 
features of which is within the customary 10-year budget window this 
budget would balance. It does not happen overnight. It takes 8 years to 
get there. But it does, in fact, balance, and it does it by essentially 
containing the rate of growth in spending. Only in the first year is 
there a spending cut, and that is less than 3 percent. Every year 
thereafter spending grows in this budget, but it grows a little more 
slowly than the alternative. It grows at a sustainable pace so that 
with normal economic growth we will reach a balance within 8 years and 
a modest surplus thereafter.
  It does call for some of these structural entitlement reforms we 
need. Specifically, it would call for adopting the bipartisan Medicare 
reform plan that I would remind everyone permits senior citizens to 
continue to choose the traditional fee-for-service Medicare they have 
now--if that is their choice--but it does make other options we think 
would be more cost effective available as well.
  It also adopts the President's recommendation by asking the 
wealthiest Americans to pay a little more for the Medicare benefits 
they enjoy. It asks for tax reform that we all know we need to generate 
economic growth, and it puts our budget on a sustainable path.
  I urge Members to vote in favor of this motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, this is another unbalanced plan. There 
is very little in the way of revenue to reduce deficits and debt but 
deep spending cuts in priorities such as education and energy. In fact, 
this proposal cuts discretionary spending $1 trillion below the Budget 
Control Act, which cut $900 billion. In addition, this cuts $3 trillion 
in health care by ending Medicare as we know it and by block-granting 
Medicaid, holding hostage those who are the most vulnerable among us, 
children and the disabled.
  I urge my colleagues to resist this proposal.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Does the Toomey budget we are about to vote on increase 
student loan interest rates on July 1 from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent?
  Mr. CONRAD. It does permit that.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, I hope every Senator who votes on this knows, if 
they are voting for this budget, they are voting to double student loan 
interest rates on July 1.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Inouye

[[Page 6871]]


     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Kirk
      
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote on the motion to proceed to S. Con. Res. 42 
introduced by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, like the previous three Republican 
budgets, this budget is silent on student interest rates. Anyone who 
asserts otherwise for good political theatre should know that it is 
untrue. This budget has nothing to do with student interest rates. I 
think we should have a debate on a little higher plane.
  We are borrowing $50,000 a second. We are borrowing $4 billion a day, 
over $1 trillion a year. While America burns through a century of 
wealth, the President fiddles. The President's friends fuss and they 
produce no budget.
  This budget balances in 5 years. It saves Social Security. It saves 
Medicare. It reforms and simplifies the Tax Code. I urge my colleagues 
to act now and vote for a budget that balances. Do something to save 
America from this looming debt crisis.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, this plan has massive tax cuts for the 
wealthiest among us. This plan cuts discretionary spending $2 trillion 
below the Budget Control Act that cut $900 billion. This plan ends 
Medicare in 2 years. This plan repeals health care reform. Thirty 
million more people would be uninsured.
  Perhaps most stunningly, this plan cuts Social Security benefits 39 
percent. One can say it balances, but it balances at an extraordinary 
cost. And the cost is borne by those least able to bear the cost. I 
urge my colleagues to reject this plan.
  Mr. HARKIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask the same question of the 
distinguished chairman: Would this budget have the interest rates 
double on student loans on July 1 from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent?
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, it is hard to see how it would not. Let me say, in 
education, it cuts education 59 percent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 16, nays 83, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 100 Leg.]

                                YEAS--16

     Barrasso
     Coburn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Hatch
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--83

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I can have everyone's attention, we have 
one more vote this evening. The Republican leader and I have worked out 
something tentatively--I think we will be able to put it in writing in 
just a few minutes--where we will have two votes tomorrow at noon on 
the two Fed nominees.
  I think most people know I moved last night to the FDA bill. I hope 
we won't have to file cloture on that and that we can just move to it 
and start the amendment process. That is what the people want, that is 
what we want, and that is what we are willing to do, so I hope we can 
do that. It is a wide-ranging bill, extremely important for the 
country, with relevant amendments. There are a lot of them to do, so I 
hope we can have an agreement to that effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided before the vote on the motion to 
proceed to S. Con. Res. 44 introduced by the Senator from Utah, Mr. 
Lee.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues of the old adage that 
you can make excuses or you can make progress but you cannot make both.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator deserves to be heard.
  Mr. LEE. I remind my colleagues of the old adage that you can make 
excuses or you can make progress but you cannot make both--at least not 
simultaneously.
  Our current course is unsustainable. Maintaining the status quo will 
inevitably impair our ability to fund everything from defense to 
entitlements. So sticking to this course isn't the solution. It can't 
be the solution. And if followed as a solution, it will have an impact 
that will prove devastating to America's most vulnerable populations. 
It is for exactly that reason I have proposed this budget--a budget 
that balances within 5 years, a budget that simplifies the Tax Code, a 
budget that puts health care decisions back into the hands of 
individual families, individuals themselves, and their doctors, where 
those decisions properly belong.
  We don't have much time. We have to get this done. I urge my 
colleagues to support this budget.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this budget proposal has the most serious 
mistakes I have seen in 26 years of dealing with budgets in this 
Chamber. This budget starts with an $8 trillion mistake on the size of 
the deficit.
  I have put up the calculation. This budget has Federal revenues of 
$27.5 trillion, budget outlays of $37.2 trillion, for a difference of 
$9.750 trillion. But it claims deficits of $1.750 trillion. That is an 
$8 trillion mistake.
  No. 2, it has a $5.7 trillion mistake with respect to budget 
authority. If we add up the individual budget function totals, they are 
$5.7 trillion less than the aggregate budget authority totals in what 
is being offered by the Senator.
  No. 3, this requires some committees to cut more spending than they 
have available to them in their resources. For example, the HELP 
Committee is instructed to save $2.7 trillion, and they only have $510 
billion available to them to cut.
  This budget is shot full of basic fundamental mistakes. It should not 
even be considered as a budget on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.

[[Page 6872]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 17, nays 82, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]

                                YEAS--17

     Barrasso
     Coats
     Coburn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Sessions
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--82

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.

                          ____________________