Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share some thoughts about the filling of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals judgeships. I have been involved in that issue for well over a decade. We started looking at the case numbers when President Clinton was in office. I, along with Senator Chuck Grassley, both Republicans, blocked President Bush from filling a vacancy, because that court did not need another judge and they wanted to fill it. Let's be frank. Presidents want to fill the DC Circuit Court of Appeals because they think they can shift the balance there and be able to advance their agenda throughout the judicial process because a lot of key cases are filed there, and lobbyists and outside forces that care about judges want the Presidents to put their kind of people in those positions--maybe even their law partner or their friend or their political buddy on that court. But there are some great judges on the court. But I am Ranking Republican on the Budget Committee also. I serve on the Judiciary Committee and on the Budget Committee. We have no money in this country to fund a judgeship that is not needed. The last time we were able to move one of those judges to the Ninth Circuit where the position was needed. Today, it is clear that the caseload for the DC Circuit continues to fall. The number of cases per judge in the DC Circuit continues to decline. Senator Grassley has been a champion of this issue for years. He chaired the court subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. I chaired it after he did. We have seen these numbers. Senator Durbin says, Oh, it is a shame. It is a shame these nominees don't get confirmed. As Senator McConnell noted, it was a shame that Peter Keisler, a fabulous nominee, didn't get confirmed. But, in all honesty, the court didn't need that slot filled and they don't need any of the three slots today that are vacant. They do not need to be filled. Congress has no responsibility to fill a vacancy that is not needed, and we shouldn't do it. Each one costs about $1 million a year. That is what it costs to fill a judgeship. We have needs around the country. We have certain needs around the country, and we are going to have to add judges. Why would we fill slots with judges we don't need and not fill slots with judges we do need? That is my fundamental view about it. I will just say this: It is not going to happen. We are not going to fill these slots. This country is in deep financial trouble. The majority basically is saying: Oh, the Budget Control Act and, oh, we have cut to the bone. We can't find another dime in savings. Do you know what the problem is, America? You haven't sent us enough money. If you would just send more money to Washington, we could spread it around and everything would be fine. This is basically what we are hearing from the leadership: No more cuts. In fact, the Budget Control Act reduced spending too much. Oh, this is critically important. Every dollar we spend is critically important and we can't reduce a dime of it or even the growth of it. That is what we have been hearing: Send more money to Washington. We want to raise taxes. We are open about demanding increases in taxes to fund whatever it is we want to spend. Is there any waste and abuse in this government? There absolutely is. Look at this chart. Senator Durbin is on the Judiciary Committee. He has been involved in this. He knows these numbers. There is nothing phony about what I am showing my colleagues today. This is absolute fact: Total appeals filed per active judge. These are the judges on the court today. The DC Circuit has eight judges. They have eight judges. The number of appeals filed per judge in their court is 149, and the average per circuit judge in America is 383. The average is 2\1/2\ times that number. We do not need to fill these slots. Look at the Eleventh Circuit. They have vacancies, but at this point they are doing almost 800 cases per judge per year. Think about that. In the Second Circuit, which is Manhattan--a very important circuit with very complex cases--there are more than 2\1/2\ times the number of cases than the DC Circuit. Remember, this is the current number of judges, I say to my colleagues. This isn't if we were to add three more judges. If we added three more judges, it would be a little over 100 cases per judge, not 149. This is absolute fact. They take the entire summer off. No other circuit does this. They have canceled oral arguments they had scheduled because there were no cases to argue. They take the summer off. I talked to one circuit judge in another circuit who said: At least one of the judges in the DC Circuit goes around the country sometimes and helps out, but none of our judges can because we are so busy we don't have time to do it. Most of our judges are working very hard. I am a total believer in the integrity and the value of the Federal judiciary. I respect them greatly. They do important work. But it has just so happened in the course of our American system that the DC Circuit is at a point where it has the lowest caseload per judge in decades, of any circuit and it needs to be fixed and the number of cases continues to decline. So what I would say to my colleagues is I believe we should give deference to the President in the nomination of judges. I voted for, I am sure, close to 90 percent of the nominations the President has submitted. I voted for almost 90 percent, I would suggest. But I am not going to support three judges we don't need. The last thing we need to be doing is burning on the Mall of the United States of America $3 million a year to fund judgeships we don't need. There are other places in this government we can cut wasteful spending as well, but this one highlights the situation. I suggest to my colleagues this is a test to this Senate. This is a test for all of the Members of the Senate. If we say there is no place to save money in Washington; if we say we have found every bit of waste, fraud, and abuse there is--well, look at this court. I am not condemning any of the nominees. I am not complaining about their quality or their ability. I am saying the taxpayers of America should not have extracted from them another $3 million a year to fund three judges that absolutely are not needed, particularly when we have legitimate needs in other courts around the country that need more judges. Look at the Eleventh Circuit, my circuit: Almost 800 cases per judge filed. This circuit, the DC Circuit, 149, and they want three more judges--not so. I believe we have a 10-minute limit. How much time remains?

Mr. SESSIONS. So, in conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. It looks as though we will vote on the Millett nomination maybe later today. With no personal criticism of that nominee in any way, I think it is important for us to say we just don't need these slots. We are not going to fill them. Not one of the three needs to be filled. We are not going to fill any of them. We are going to honor the finances of the American people. Once again, I express my appreciation to Senator Chuck Grassley, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who has led the fight on this issue for a number of years. I have worked with him on it. We have legislation to transfer these judgeships to other places. That is what we should be doing, moving them to where they are needed. It has been great to work with Senator Grassley. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for an inquiry, under the UC were we going to divide 30 minutes per side? Was that the intent of the unanimous consent request I made earlier?

Mr. SESSIONS. In the usual form. All right.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was honored to be at the funeral services at Arlington for ADM Tazewell T. Shepard, Jr., an American patriot, a native of Mobile, AL, a man widely recognized for his character and integrity as well as for courage, intelligence, and professionalism. Admiral Shepard was born in Mobile, AL, attended Murphy High School, one of Alabama's great high schools, and joined the Navy when World War II began. He married the daughter of Senator John Sparkman and they were partners for 71 years. He received the Navy Cross, the Navy's highest award for heroism during the Battle of Guadalcanal acting with coolness and courage to direct action and to care for casualties. He was a naval aide to President John F. Kennedy and advised the President during the Bay of Pigs crisis in 1961. He published a book John F. Kennedy: Man of the Sea, in 1965. His quiet and firm character was the quality that stands out in this life well lived. Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor spoke at the service and recalled those times of friendship--tennis, bridge, and dancing--enjoyed by their families. His son, Tazewell Shepard Ill, spoke also and provided insights that revealed the strong values and positive qualities of his father. The service, honored by the presence of a naval detachment, closed with the naval hymn. Admiral Shepard through the quality of his life set an example of faith, family and patriotism. We extend our sympathy to his fine family and even in this time of loss celebrate his wonderful and productive life.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to share some thoughts, and I thank Senator Corker for his commitment and leadership on these difficult budget issues. As a businessman and someone who fabulously ran an important city in Tennessee, he knows we have to live within our means. There are limits as to what we can do and maintain a healthy financial future for America. I think that is important for all of us. I first want to respond to a couple of things Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, and Senator Durbin said earlier this morning that sort of surprised me. First of all, he said there is no plan to break the caps. I was--as the Senator from Tennessee was--with the President on Friday, and he said there was a strong push from Democratic Senators to spend above the limits of the Budget Control Act that we all agreed to in August of 2011. The Budget Control Act allowed substantial growth in spending. Instead of growing $10 trillion over the next 10 years, we would have reduced the growth of the budget to $8 trillion. It is not really a cut over the 10-year period. The President submitted a budget in February of 2012, 6 months later, that would spend $1 trillion over those cuts. The Democratic budget that just passed this year--the first time in 4 years--would have increased spending by $1 trillion over those cuts. I am a little bit uneasy because I think there is an effort, and there will be an effort, which is unacceptable, to deal with those cuts--or to break the caps that limit the growth of spending, which is the right way to say it. Of course, there are some cuts we need to make. Then Senators Reid and Durbin talked about President Bush's problems with deficits. He didn't do a great job in containing deficits. The highest deficit he had in 1 year was $487 billion. The year before he left office, the deficit he had was $167 billion. President Obama took office and rammed through, with unanimous Democratic support, a stimulus bill that added $1 trillion to the debt of the United States--the biggest single spending bill ever, and every penny of that borrowed because we didn't have any money. We were already in debt. So we borrowed $1 trillion to spend. So for 5 consecutive years we will have averaged over $1 trillion in deficits per year. We have never been over $500 billion a year before that, and $1 trillion is $1,000 billion. So President Obama's average in 5 years is unprecedented. It is stunning. We have never, ever seen such a debt accumulation in such a rapid period of time. I think we need to understand that. Our colleagues continue to defend it and still want to spend more, and their budget would spend $1 trillion more that they voted on and passed in this Congress. They use the word ``extreme'' for anybody who wants to reduce spending and try to attack people who want to reduce spending. Senator Durbin talked about how we need a sound dollar. Is the dollar sounder today, I ask Senator Corker, because we, this Congress, reached a bipartisan agreement to reduce spending by $2.1 trillion and the growth of spending by that much? Isn't it stronger today than it would have been if we hadn't done that? It was a tense time in August 2011. People weren't sure how it would all end, but it ended in a modest reduction in the growth of spending which I think made the country better as a result. The last thing we should ever contemplate is backing off of that agreement and not at least adhering to that agreement. We need to do a good deal more. So I wish to share a few thoughts in general. I will go into detail, if we have time, about the nature of the Budget Control Act and explain it in more detail. We have heard the word ``extremist'' thrown around a lot over recent days. Let me share with my colleagues what I think is extreme. Extreme is adding $6 trillion to the debt of the United States in 5 years--that is extreme--and saying there is no spending we can cut. ``We have cut every dime we can cut.'' Extreme is forcing a health care law through that the American people oppose and telling them we can take $500 billion out of Medicare, and strengthen Medicare, and then fund ObamaCare, double counting the $500 billion that will come back to haunt us in the future. Extreme is refusing to make any concession, negotiation, or alteration to a health care law that is going to financially bankrupt us. It will add another $6 trillion to the long-term debt of America--almost as much as Social Security, according to the Government Accountability Office. They say it would be fully paid for. The President said in a joint session of Congress it would not add one dime to the debt now or ever, period, and the Government Accountability Office says it will add $6 trillion to the long-term debt of America. This is how a nation goes broke. Instead of fixing Social Security and Medicare, which need fixing, we start a whole new program that adds almost as much debt over time as they do. Extreme is knowing we are on an unsustainable debt path and refusing to do anything about it. In the last 5 years, we have spent more than $15 trillion and added more than $6 trillion to the debt. Never has so great a sum been spent for so little benefit. Consider: Nearly 60 million working-age Americans aren't working. They are out of work. I wish the unemployment rate were 5 percent, but the truth is the unemployment rate in this country is 7.3 percent, and we have the lowest workplace participation since 1975. There are fewer people working today than there were in 2007. That is the key number. How many people are working? Our population is up, but the number of people actually having jobs is down, and more and more of those are part-time jobs. Median household income is lower than it has been on any year since 1998. Two-thirds of the job creation this year has been part-time. We spent $1 trillion last year on welfare and poverty programs, State and Federal combined. One in six Americans are on food stamps. Let me repeat: One in six people in this Nation are receiving food stamps from the Federal Government. This economy is not healthy. Despite the endless inundation of Federal funds in some of our big cities, one in three children still live in poverty in our Nation's capital. In nearby Baltimore, one in three residents are on food stamps, and one in three youth live in poverty. This isn't a booming, growing economy. We borrow, tax, and spend. It hasn't produced results that are good for our country. Growth is way below what it was projected to be at this time. They were predicting 3.5 or 4 percent growth. We are not likely to add 2 percent growth this year. The only people who seem to be gaining in this economic plan is the political class who came up with it and those with enough lobbyists to profit from it. What does the President say? What does Senator Reid say? How about our friends on the other side of the aisle, what do they say? Spend more money. That is what they say we need to do. But it is a budget that spends another $1 trillion, and we have to go to conference on that budget, they say. It is rather odd that after 4 years of not even producing one at all, now they are anxious to take one to conference that adds $1 trillion to the debt. Put more people on government aid. Energy prices too high? Oh, mail people another check. They are hurting; let's send out government checks. Factory closed? Mail another check out to people who didn't get a job. Your school is failing? Send them more money. Families falling apart? Mail another check. Then there is this one: Too many Americans unemployed? Bring in foreign workers to do the job.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, do we have a 10-minute limit?

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. By what definition can we call what we have been seeing for the last 5 years a success? It is just not. That is the problem. We have taxed more, we have spent more, we have regulated more, we have borrowed more, we have stimulated more, and it hasn't produced solid growth. We have had the slowest recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. So this is the plan. Reduce wages that results in an increase in unemployment, more part-time jobs, more regulations, and higher energy costs. And we make that up how? Well, the government will just borrow money and subsidize people in need. That is not the kind of compassion I think we need. I think we need to be asking ourselves, what is really happening that is hurting Americans, and why can't we create a government that is leaner, more productive, that allows growth and prosperity to occur, and not tax, regulate, and borrow our country into debt. This is the fundamental choice the Nation is going to have to be dealing with. Indeed, my colleagues fundamentally are saying this: Well, we have a problem in Washington. We don't have enough money. We just don't have enough money. We acknowledge we are borrowing too much money, the debt is too high, and we are on an unsustainable course. But, see, the problem is not us. We haven't overspent. We don't have programs that are running out of control. We have no unmanaged agencies and departments. The problem is, American people, you haven't sent enough money. Why don't you send some more money? That is what we need to have in this country. The American people need to understand how smart we are, how good we have managed their money, and if they will just send us more money, we can figure out all of this and the government will take care of it. It is your fault, America. You are hardheaded. You won't send us more money. Send more money, and we will fix the problems in America. I reject that idea. We have to get our house under control and make our government leaner, focused on productivity, and serving the interests of people who are hurting right now. They are not doing well, and this economy is not doing well. I see other Senators are here, Madam President. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to share these thoughts. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. The vote yesterday was to raise the debt ceiling without altering by one penny the spending and debt path we are on. It was demanded by Senator Reid and the majority that we raise the debt ceiling, give the President another $1 trillion or so in borrowing, and no commitment to make any changes in how we got here. That was not what we did in August 2011. Then, we agreed to reduce the growth of spending over 10 years by $2.1 trillion in exchange for raising the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion. Of course, we have already spent all of that. We have already borrowed $2.1 trillion more. Senator Reid and the majority are demanding a clean debt ceiling bill, where we raise the debt ceiling but don't bother to ask us to change our spending habits, not one penny. They say we can't negotiate on the debt ceiling. That is wrong. I think it is perfectly appropriate. The House is prepared to do this, but they want some changes in how we are spending the taxpayers' money. The American people are tired of it. By a huge majority, they say we should not raise the debt ceiling unless we change our spending habits. Actually, almost a quarter of the American people say we should live within our income. We shouldn't raise the debt ceiling at all. The idea that the President of the United States would not pay the bond holders of the United States, the debt holders of our country, if the debt ceiling were not raised, is unthinkable. Of course he will. He has to under the Constitution. If we did not raise the debt ceiling, we would be bringing in $240 billion a month. The interest on our debt is $20 billion a month. That should be the first thing that is paid--and I am sure it would be if that were to happen. I agree, the shutdown needs to end and the debt ceiling impasse needs to be dealt with. It is not good for America. But we cannot just say we are not going to do anything, we are not going to make any changes in our habits around here. That is what is at stake. I will take a few minutes to walk through our situation about how we arrived at this point, especially with discretionary spending. I hope this will be helpful to our colleagues. It is a product of our work on the Budget Committee, where I am ranking member. Many will remember in the summer of 2011 that Congress and the President engaged in a vigorous debate, tough negotiations, about how best to address runaway annual deficits of $1 trillion a year. As a matter of fact, over 5 years we have added $6 trillion to the debt of the United States of America. Our discussions were ultimately resolved with the passage of the Budget Control Act. The BCA, as it is called, had at its heart three agreements. First it required a vote in each House of Congress on a balanced budget. Of course, the Senate voted that down. A majority, I believe, voted for it, but it didn't get the supermajority for a constitutional amendment. Second, it allowed the President to increase the debt limit by $2.1 trillion subject to a congressional vote. That occurred. Third, it provided spending controls of at least $2.1 trillion over or equal to the debt limit increase over 10 years. The debt ceiling has already been reached in 2 years, a little over, and we still have not honored the commitment to reduce the growth of spending by $2.1 trillion over 10 years. To rein in government spending the BCA did two things. It placed statutory caps or limits on discretionary spending. Those are the general programs of our government, which totaled $915 billion over 10 years. It was enforced by sequestration. It also called for an additional $1.2 trillion of future savings from any combination of entitlements and revenues agreed to by the so-called supercommittee that the legislation formed to try to reach some agreement on long-term improvements in our financial condition. This supercommittee was given the challenge to do this. If they failed, then additional reductions of $1.2 trillion would be enforced through a future sequester mechanism. The sequester was very clear, very real. The legislation mandated $2.1 trillion in reduced spending, but it allowed the committee to look for ways to do it. If the committee didn't reach agreement, there would be some automatic cuts. Nearly $1 trillion of savings were booked initially. The supercommittee went to work, but unfortunately they failed to make recommendations to Congress to find the other savings required under the act. I commend the members of the committee. I do believe they tried their best, but they didn't reach agreement. With that failure, the BCA outlined the path forward: $1.2 trillion in spending reductions, including interest savings, in both defense and nondefense operations spread out evenly over the 9 years left between the fiscal years 2013 and 2021. Due to a variety of other laws passed over the years, primarily the 1990 deficit deal and the 2010 so-called pay-as-you-go act, which was passed on a debt limit increase also, the reductions do not apply to all Federal spending programs but only to those that are not exempt from enforcement. Many social programs are actually exempt. The food stamp program does not get a dime in reductions. Medicaid does not get a dime in reductions, for example. These cuts were to begin in January 2013, but were delayed until March of this year 2013, inside of that fiscal cliff agreement bill we reached, the American Taxpayer Relief Act, in January. When the sequester took effect on March 1, it covered both discretionary and some mandatory spending, but less on mandatory. Discretionary spending was reduced a total of $68 billion for this fiscal year; $43 billion of that will fall on defense, and $26 billion on nondefense spending. They each represent about half of the Federal Government expenditures for discretionary accounts. Additionally, $17 billion in identified mandatory spending was sequestered, of which $11 billion came from Medicare. Total reductions were $85 billion. It is not a whole lot when we are spending $3.5 trillion, but $85 billion was at least progress downward in spending a little bit, at least from the growth in spending. Looking ahead, colleagues have asked me what happens next under the Budget Control Act? In 2014, spending will be restrained on both the mandatory and discretionary side of the ledger at the approximate rates I mentioned. A sequester began on October 1 for mandatory spending--and this is mainly Medicare--totaling $18.8 million. Medicare spending will be reduced by a little over $11 billion, and the rest of the mandatory savings will come from reductions in defense and other mandatory spending. There are some programs in the Defense Department that are mandatory also. Most of the Defense Department is discretionary. So the minor mandatory spending reductions hit defense and certain administrative expenses for Federal benefit programs and so forth. For discretionary spending, the direction is down. Under the BCA, total regular discretionary spending is planned to be at $967 billion this upcoming fiscal year, split between $498 billion for defense, $469 billion for nondefense, although nondefense got less of a cut than defense. This year's nondefense number is the same as last year; it is frozen. The nondefense discretionary spending did not take another cut this year. It is flat. Defense will be taking an additional $20 billion reduction this year under the BCA. A so-called clean continuing resolution would come in at an annual rate of $986 billion, due to the fact that it keeps nondefense spending below the BCA caps while reflecting the current run rate.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I have a number of other comments about where we are financially. I would ask unanimous consent to have 1 additional minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would say, colleagues, that the defense cuts do not count the war reduction costs. Those were entirely separate and not part ever this. The defense budget is getting hammered, but we ought to smooth some of these reductions out in a more fair way. Fundamentally, though we must remain committed to the requirements of the BCA. I know it would be hard for my Democratic colleagues because the budget they produced would spend $1 trillion over the BCA limits. The President proposes to spend $1 trillion above those limits that we agreed to in August 2011. As part of this deal, it would be wrong for us to breach the promise we made to the American people that if they let us raise the debt ceiling to $2.1 trillion, we would reduce spending over 10 years by $2.1 trillion. That reduction is really a reduction in the growth of spending because we would be growing spending $8 trillion over 10 years rather than $10 trillion over 10 years. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the Republican Senators met with President Obama earlier today and discussed many of the financial issues facing America and the difficulties we are having in achieving an agreement that puts us on a sound financial path. There surely are actions we can take together to improve our situation. I believe there was some progress made, and there are some avenues for progress that could be opened in the hours to come. I hope we can do that. But now it is well to recognize that our Medicare and Medicaid programs are surging in costs, and--as the President rightly noted to us at our meeting earlier today and has done so for a number of years-- that government health care costs are the biggest drivers of our debt. In other words, it is increasing at a faster rate than other programs, and we project it will continue to increase at those rates. I think that is true. It is true. We have a huge challenge there. But importantly to this whole discussion, I recall during a formal address to a joint session of Congress in September 2009, the President promoted his Affordable Care Act and stated that he would help fix this problem of growing costs of health care and then flatly and unequivocally promised, ``I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or any time in the future, period.'' That is astoundingly inaccurate, and we have to know this. We are voting and wrestling on what to do about our health care bill and other spending programs. But one thing that has been overlooked is this promise that the health care bill--the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare--is not paid for as it was promised, and it is astoundingly over budget. Let me talk for a few minutes about this issue and its importance. As we work together to try to reach a compromise, we have to understand that fact. As we work to deal with some of our long-term financial challenges, we need to focus on that matter. Indeed, it appears, according to the Government Accountability Office, that over the long-term accounting period used to evaluate the unfunded liabilities of the United States, that the Affordable Care Act will add $6.2 trillion to the unfunded liabilities of America. That does not count the interest on that over this long period of time which may well double that figure. It puts it almost equal to the liability of Social Security--and maybe even more. So this is a big deal. I want to share with my colleagues some thoughts as good faith negotiations are going on by Members. Republicans and Democrats are talking, the White House staff people are talking, and House Members and the Speaker are talking. There are some principles they need to be aware of as we go forward. I have a budget warning, and will make this point: Trust fund improvements--Social Security and Medicare primarily--are produced by savings or increased revenues in these programs. A number of ideas have been floated that could do that, and they need to be done. But those savings through revenue or new cutting of expenses cannot be used to justify or pay for breaking Budget Control Act caps, and that is very important. It is essential in these hours of financial debate that all Members of Congress and the American people understand that the savings gained from much-needed reforms of our financially unsound Social Security and Medicare trust funds can only be used to strengthen those funds and not be used simultaneously to support spending for a new program, such as the Affordable Care Act. We can't use the money twice. Our vital Social Security and Medicare programs are not solvent at this time. We know they are going into deficit right now. Our revenues will increase for those programs or costs to those programs will be brought down--as many ideas are being floated, and indeed, a number of them are in the President's budget and have some merit--and the resulting funds can only be spent once. The Budget Control Act restricts discretionary spending. It says: We are not going to increase spending over a certain rate. We are going to reduce the rate of increase in government spending. The Budget Control Act is in the law. It was negotiated by the President, Senator Reid--the majority leader here--the Speaker, and Senator McConnell, and they agreed on certain limits on spending over the next 10 years. At that time we were projected to increase spending over 10 years by $10 trillion. If it was flat spending, we would spend $37 trillion; under projected growth it would go to $47 trillion. Under the Budget Control Act we said: OK, we are going to cut spending. It really wasn't a cut in spending. But we would reduce the growth of spending from $10 trillion to $8 trillion, and that is why we are hearing so much today. In the 2 years-plus since that agreement, Congress--except for a few budget gimmicks that my staff members bring up--has largely stuck to those limits. The President and the Democratic Senate have openly and directly opposed those limits. The President--6 months after signing the Budget Control Act--submitted a budget to this Senate that would increase spending $1 trillion over the limits agreed to in the Budget Control Act. Can you imagine that? There was a bipartisan meeting. As we worked on the debt ceiling to raise the debt ceiling $2 trillion, we agreed that over 10 years we would cut spending by $2.1 trillion. Six months later, the President submits a budget to the Senate and to the House that calls for spending $1 trillion over that amount. So I think that was a breach--a serious act of the President to move away from the promises he had made and the act he signed into law. To be more specific about it, one of the proposals in the President's budget that received a lot of discussion is an alteration of the way we calculate the inflation index for Social Security. It has been referred to as chained CPI. It is projected to save a certain amount of money-- maybe $128 billion or maybe more. Let's just say it is going to save $100 billion--chained CPI--and it would, in fact, increase the revenue into Social Security, and it would reduce the amount of money that is paid out of Social Security. It would save, let's say, $100 billion. So this would strengthen Social Security, there is no doubt about that. It would strengthen Social Security because the Social Security liabilities are going down and the revenue is going up. What I wish to say to our colleagues as they wrestle with how to bring our numbers into better balance is that those savings cannot benefit Social Security and simultaneously justify increased Treasury spending over the Budget Control Act levels. We can't use the money twice. This is so basic. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. CBO, our Congressional Budget Office, has analyzed this kind of maneuver, and they have clearly affirmed that even though the budget score over 10 years, using the unified budget accounting methods, would suggest otherwise, we cannot spend the money in both places. So if we know how to ask a question of CBO, over the 10-year budget window, it can give the appearance that we have this money because it creates more money coming into the government that we can spend over here. But the money is dedicated to Social Security. It is Social Security money. It can't be spent twice. If it is going to strengthen Social Security, it can't be spent over here.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Presiding Officer most graciously. CBO has flatly called this in a letter, at my request, double- counting. Can my colleagues imagine the Congressional Budget Office saying that the U.S. Congress is double-counting? Actually, in that case, in dealing with the Affordable Care Act, $500 billion of money extracted out of Medicare was being used to claim it would pay for the Affordable Care Act when it was Medicare's money. So I am talking at this point and just sharing an example from Social Security and the chained CPI, but the principles are the same because both are trust funds. So it is double-counting. In fact, any Social Security or Medicare trust fund savings so produced are legally assets of the trust fund, and debt instruments of the U.S. Treasury are issued and interest paid from the U.S. Treasury to Social Security and to the Medicare trust funds on the monies that are borrowed in that way. If the savings, as is likely, do not result in a trust fund surplus, then there is really no surplus that they can borrow. It simply tends to show more income to the U.S. Treasury-- falsely showing that because, again, the money is committed off-budget to Social Security. The critical fact is that all of those moneys are already obligated to Social Security and Medicare and will be needed by those programs, and more money, actually, is going to be needed by those programs to meet the future obligations of those trust funds, which are insolvent. They don't have enough money coming in to pay the obligations they will be required to pay in the years to come. So the scope of this abuse of our accounting system is truly enormous and threatens our Nation's very financial future. For example, it has allowed the President to falsely assert that the Affordable Care Act would not add one dime to the debt when, absent double-counting, the act would increase our debt by over $500 billion over the next 10 years--$500 billion. It is going to adversely impact the financial condition of America. The same accounting manipulations enabled many supporters of the Gang of 8 immigration bill to assert that their legislation was paid for. They were going to spend all of this money and they were going to make us safe from illegal immigration and it was all paid for--every dime of it--and wouldn't add to the debt. Do my colleagues know how they did that? Well, they were going to give Social Security cards to millions-- 11 million or however many would come forward--and they would pay Social Security, and they would have more Social Security money coming into the U.S. Treasury, and therefore that would pay for the extra border patrol and other expenses they said they have to spend money on. But I ask my colleagues to think about it. The money paid by the people who have been given legal status, the Social Security they have paid for is their money. It is their money. They are going to draw out every penny of it when they get older. We can't say it is available to pay another expense today. If we do, it is not going to be there, to pay for their Social Security when they retire. How simple is this? This was the message here on the floor. They steadfastly insisted that the bill was paid for, double-counting Social Security money. So we have to get straight about this, I have to say. Legislation must be adopted to stop this double-counting. It is open to abuse and manipulation and has been done, really, by both parties in the past but not as much as we have seen lately. It is enabling the Nation's dangerous financial trajectory. Finally, as we work to end the Nation's financial impasse, another warning is needed. All should understand that consent to passage of a continuing resolution or debt ceiling bill cannot be achieved until we have sufficient time to have a complete CBO score of it so we know what kind of maneuvers are being used in the bill. So I am going to object. We are not going to wake up one day and say we have to run to the floor and pass a bill with 30 minutes' notice or 3 hours' notice. That would be a mistake. Madam President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, it is a good thing that Democrats for the first time in 4 years passed a budget--at least brought one to the floor and passed it on a strictly partisan basis. Before that, they not only didn't pass one, they didn't bring one to the floor for 4 years and refused to do so, even though a specific provision of the United States Code actually required them to do so. It was a stunning development. Senator Conrad, then the Democratic chair of the Budget Committee, wanted to bring up budgets, fought to bring up budgets, and one time said he was going to bring up a budget. But Senator Durbin and others in the leadership apparently had a vote, and they voted against him. Senator Murray, to her credit, has gotten a budget through. The Presiding Officer is a member of that committee, and they got a budget through this year, which was a good thing. I am not sure, but I suspect Senator Murray was one of those who blocked Senator Conrad from even bringing up a budget for 4 years. So I think it is a bit aggressive to say Republicans are blocking a budget when the history is they haven't even voted on one. Secondly, there are Members on this side of the aisle who simply say the legislation necessary to raise the debt ceiling again should be passed--like legislation should be passed--on the floor of the Senate, and it would require a 60-vote point of order where you have to have 60 votes to pass. In conference, a raising of the debt ceiling would be put on the budget which only requires 51 votes for passage. We have simply said we would allow the budget to go to conference and agree to conference, but we want a commitment that our Democratic colleagues will not try to sneak through raising the debt ceiling on the budget--which doesn't require but 51 votes. Our colleagues have flatly refused. If they would make that agreement, we would go to conference. I think our Democratic majority should agree to that. They have indicated they don't intend to put it on the budget. One time Senator Durbin said he didn't think it was appropriate to put it on the budget. If so, let's make clear we are not going to gimmick it up and add that to it. The reason we have had such contention at this point in history is that we are facing fundamental challenges relevant to the whole future of America financially. It is a time of great importance. The American people understand this. The American people want us to take action to place this country on a sound financial path. So we are heading to the debt ceiling. By law we limit the amount of money Congress can borrow and how much money we can spend above our current level. We are now spending about $3,500 billion a year and we are taking in about $2,800 billion a year. Think about it. That is what we are doing every year, and it is unsustainable. In August of 2011 we faced a debt ceiling, and the American people told Congress: We want to clip back on your credit card. You are not going to continue to borrow this much money every year. Before you raise the debt ceiling, we want you to show that you are going to be more frugal and are going to manage our money better. Republicans dug their heels in and said, Mr. President, we are not going to raise the debt ceiling until you agree to some financial constraints and that you are not going to keep spending recklessly every year. After a tense time, a committee was formed and an agreement was reached, and this is what we agreed to: First, we would raise the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion. Then, over the next 10 years we would reduce the projected growth of spending by $2.1 trillion--one for one, as Speaker Boehner said. So it gave Congress 10 years to find cuts. But in a little over 2 years, we have already borrowed another $2 trillion. We have hit the debt ceiling cap again, and we have not yet come close to saving the $2 trillion we promised to save. And by the way, these are not really cuts. When you look at the U.S. budget, the budget was projected to increase spending from $37 trillion over 10 years to $47 trillion over 10 years. With the Budget Control Act, spending would increase from $37 trillion to $45 trillion over 10 years. That is not really a cut in spending, is it? Yes, the way it has been carried out hits some departments more than others--particularly the Defense Department--and we need to adjust that. But fundamentally, the reduction in the growth of spending that was part of the BCA last year was not extreme, not irresponsible, and should and must be preserved. But colleagues, the President of the United States, after signing that agreement in August--the sequester is part of the BCA. It was all part of the same deal that created the $2.1 trillion in savings. In January, after that August, he proposed a budget that would increase spending another $1 trillion and would raise taxes $1 trillion. That is basically what our colleagues passed in their budget this year: to spend $1 trillion more than the Budget Control Act said we should spend and raise taxes another $1 trillion over 10 years. This is a total abdication of the promise we made to the American people. We said, OK, American people, we are going to vote to raise the debt ceiling. A lot of people didn't like any raising of the debt ceiling. Phone calls to my office were against any raising. People said, It is time for you guys to live within your means like I have to do in my house. So we raised it. But we promised we wouldn't spend so much. We promised we would reduce spending by $2.1 trillion, but over 10 years. Do you know what a lot of cynics around here said? They said, Congress won't adhere to that. That is just a bunch of baloney. They promise that all the time, and then they breach their promises all the time. That is why the country is going broke. That is exactly what the President did in January of 2012, 6 months after the agreement--he proposed to spend another $1 trillion above the amount of money we agreed to spend 6 months before. Why? I didn't really want to sign that agreement. I didn't really want to cut that much money. So I am not bound by it. I didn't make a promise to the American people. I forgot all about that. That was 6 months ago. Oh, a 10-year promise, that we are going to contain the growth of spending for 10 years? Forget that. I don't want to do that. I want to spend more. I have investments I want to make. I have taxes I want to increase. This is fundamentally what is occurring here. So we have got to stand firm and adhere at least to the containment of growth in spending in the Budget Control Act. We have to. Failure to do that is a capitulation in our promises to the American people, a total abandonment of any pretension that we will be fiscally responsible in this body. It is just unthinkable that we would abandon the limits we had in the Budget Control Act. The sad truth is the Budget Control Act reductions in the growth of spending do not come close to putting us on a firm financial footing. We are still on an unsustainable debt course, as our Congressional Budget Office has told us. Yes, we have seen a reduction in the deficits this year of $600 billion. People say that is great. George Bush has been called profligate, and sometimes he was. The highest deficit he ever had was $470 billion. The year before his last year in office was $167 billion. President Obama in his 6 years will have averaged almost $1 trillion a year in deficits. We have never, ever come close to that kind of deficit before in the history of the Republic. So what does a budget say that says we want to tax people $1 trillion more and spend more money under these circumstances? I will tell you what it says. From the President and the majority here in the Senate, it says: It is not our problem. We can't find any more ways to reduce the growth of spending. We can't save another dime. You people just don't understand. There is no way we can save any more money. We have a problem, though. And do you know who is responsible for it? You, the American people. It is your fault. You won't give us enough money. If you would just send more money, another $1 trillion, another $2 trillion, another $600 billion which was passed in January, just another few hundred billion more or a trillion here and a trillion there in taxes, why, we could solve all of the problems. Send us more money. And by the way, we will use that money to create government programs and government bureaucracies that impose great costs on the American economy and have in fact resulted in the declining wages of American workers to a degree that is not acceptable. We need a growth-oriented, lean government--a lean government that serves the people for the least possible cost and reduces these deficits. Deficits themselves are pulling down the economic growth in our country. The size of our debt is so large, we have never had anything like it, it is already beginning to diminish the prospects for growth in our economy and reduces job creation and reduces wages. I know we are in a tough time now. We certainly need to work our way out of this. But the President negotiated over the debt ceiling in August of 2011, and we made at least a step forward. In fact, it was the most significant fiscal step this country has taken, maybe in decades, and for the last 2 years we have actually spent less money than the year before. Think about it. To hear people talk, they would think the country is going to collapse. But we have had a modest reduction in spending, and that has been good. It has been good. But it is not nearly enough to put us on a sustained path. We need to save Social Security, we need to strengthen and save Medicare, we cannot afford the Affordable Care Act. We have witnessed a total misrepresentation on the Affordable Care Act with regard to its cost. The Government Accounting Office, an independent auditor, has told us it is going to add at least $6 trillion to the debt of the United States over the long term under its likely set of assumptions. It does not pay for itself--nowhere close. It is as unstable financially as Social Security is over the long term.

Mr. SESSIONS. Let's keep working. Maybe we can develop some ways to confront our financial problems. It is absolutely critical that we do that. We have a moral responsibility to do that and we have to start working together to achieve it. I think the President needs to back off his statements that he will not negotiate on the continuing resolution or the debt ceiling. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I have a moment.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. Of course that is correct. I understand the Speaker has indicated there is no guarantee that the increase in the debt ceiling would not be a part of a conference report that came out of conference committee. We have independent Senators in this body who simply said we do not think we should be subjected to having the debt ceiling increase without a full debate and the normal processes of 60 votes in the Senate. That is where the disagreement lies. People can have disagreements about the validity of their concern, but it is a legitimate concern. If there is no intention to move a debt ceiling increase at 51 votes, why wouldn't my colleagues agree not to do it? That is the disagreement I think that now exists.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I say to my colleague, through the Chair, it is very simple. Senators have rights. They have a right to assert those privileges on the floor of the Senate. We have Senators who say you should not do this, you should not raise the debt ceiling on the budget and we do not want to go to conference unless you do agree not to sneak that through without a full debate and 60-vote threshold on the floor of the Senate. Attaching it to a bill that is a budget deal that is huge and would have a lot of interest in it would make it even more difficult to separate that question out. Rightly or wrongly, that is their view. I say I don't see any problem and I am amazed at the intransigence of the majority of not just accepting that. I don't think it is likely, as the Senator indicated, that the House would add that to it, frankly. I am not too worried about it. But some are and that is causing the disagreement right now. I think it would be great to go to conference. I would like to see a conference occur, frankly. I think it is an unusual and positive development that after 4 years of not even bringing a budget to the floor, that we now have the majority here passing a budget so we can try to do something with it in conference-- although I have to tell you, all of our colleagues, there is a big difference in the budgets. The budget passed out of the Senate with our majority that every Republican opposed completely busted the Budget Control Act. It is nowhere close to what was agreed to in that Act 2 years ago. I think we have a huge gap to cover in conference. It is not impossible and it would probably be a healthy thing to start that process. I wish my colleagues would relent and commit not to try to sneak the debt ceiling increase in on the budget. I thank the Chair. I appreciate my colleague, a member of the Budget Committee, who contributes ably and works hard to try to do the right thing around here.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think we should all note that this unanimous consent agreement essentially asks the Senate to direct the House on what to pass and to pass the CR the Senate desires. There won't be any need to, in effect, deal in that fashion. That won't work. I would also note in response that there is a unanimous consent request agreement I could agree to and I think Members of this side would agree to, and that is that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment at the desk, which is the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate proceed to a vote on a motion to insist on its amendment, requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and authorize the Chair to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate. I further ask consent that it not be in order for the Senate to consider a conference report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit. That is the reason there has been an objection over here--because, under the way we believe we should proceed, raising the debt limit is a legislative act that should be subject to 60 votes. The concern from Members of our conference who have objected is that if we put the debt limit on the budget, then we would only have to have 51 votes. They have insisted they would approve going to the House and having conference on the budget, but they want an agreement that they are not going to attempt to slip that through. And if it is not a problem, why won't they agree? So for these reasons, we are not able to agree, and I would object.

Mr. SESSIONS. And I believe I understood she has renewed it, and so I would renew my objection.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, just briefly, I appreciate Senator Murray having passed a budget this year in the Senate for the first time in 4 years. It is a budget that is far from the kind of budget we should have, but it was one they stood up and voted for. That is something of value to begin our process around here. I would note that the reason it is such an unacceptable proposal from my Democratic colleagues--very similar to what President Obama asked for--is that it raises taxes $1 trillion over 10 years and raises spending $1 trillion over 10 years. That is above the lawful Budget Control Act levels we agreed to on a bipartisan basis in August of 2011. If we remember, the President insisted we have a debt ceiling increase then. He said that we couldn't negotiate on it, that the country would sink into oblivion if we even got close to the debt limit, and we all had to back down and just agree to raise the debt limit without any limits. Polling data showed the American people did not believe we should raise the debt limit of America without at least cutting spending and reducing our deficits; the credit card Congress was on was going to be pulled back. So Republicans stood firm. An agreement was reached, and the President approved it. It had no tax increases and raised the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion over 10 years. How much is that? We were projected to increase spending over 10 years by $10 trillion. This would reduce the increase in spending from $10 trillion to $8 trillion--not enough to throw the government into default, disaster, and confusion if properly executed. And it certainly wasn't the best way it was done. So that was the agreement. Before the ink is dry, with a year or so under it, now our colleagues have already abandoned ship, thrown in the towel, and want to raise spending by $1 trillion over what they agreed and raise taxes by another $1 trillion. That is why we have a big disagreement. What do our colleagues want? They want to tax more, spend more, with more debt. It is not the way to run America, and the American people know it. So somehow, in this debt crisis, we all have to work together. And I respect my colleagues, but I cannot agree to doing something in this process that violates the solemn agreement. We told the American people: OK, we have raised the debt ceiling $2 trillion, but we reduced spending by $2 trillion. The debt ceiling has already eased up by $2.1 trillion, but we still made a promise we have to honor--that we will save $2.1 trillion of growth over the next 10 years. That is our responsibility and duty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two Republican Senators to be recognized would be Senator Collins from Maine followed by Senator Murkowski from Alaska and that we would continue to alternate between both sides.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be recognized at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the two Republican speakers on this side be Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Murkowski and that we continue to alternate between both sides. Since I just butted in as part of our budget debate, I did not intend or desire to take Senator Collins' time. She has been patiently waiting next in line.