Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, 15 months ago in August, the debt ceiling of the United States was reached; that is, that we had borrowed all of the money we could lawfully borrow. A big discussion occurred and a number of things came out of it. Finally, it was agreed to raise the debt ceiling so the government could continue to borrow. Almost 40 cents of every dollar we spend now is borrowed. It is unbelievable, but it is true. We also agreed that over 10 years, we would reduce spending by $2.1 trillion. That is a lot of money, but compared to what we are spending, it is not so much. For example, we were expected to spend, over the next 10 years, $47 trillion over the--basically, $37 trillion we would spend now if we maintain the current level, and we agreed to reduce it from 47 to 45. Spending over 10 years would grow by $8 trillion instead of $10 trillion, not something that would destroy the Republic, but it was a step of noticeable weight to change the debt course of America. We still remain, after that agreement, totally on an unsustainable debt course. We have more work to do. But the point I want to make is it passed both Houses of Congress, it had the support of both leaders and the President of the United States. It didn't freeze spending in a lot of things, it didn't cut spending in a lot of things, but it did reduce the growth of spending and give us some real teeth through that on certain accounts--not all accounts. Well, today was the third vote in recent weeks in which this Senate said: We will abide by and adhere to the agreement we reached. We will not spend more than we agreed to spend just August a year ago. This is a 10-year agreement. We promised to stay within those limits for 10 years. Yet within 15 months, a little over a year, we have now had the fifth bill on the floor of the Senate that violated that agreement. And this is the third time the Members of the Senate said: No, we are not going to keep violating that agreement. This survivor benefit program reform is something I have favored. I worked with Senator Nelson years ago. I was a cosponsor with him of the legislation, and we have tried a lot of ways to do it. But we agreed to spending limitations. The amendment Senator Nelson offered today had a great goal, it is something I think we can figure a way to advance for sure, but there was no reduction of spending and no pay-for for this amendment. There just wasn't. At the last moment he walks in with $7 billion--almost $7 billion--in new spending, none of which was paid for, in blatant, direct, total violation of the agreement we reached in August a year ago. We had Members, Republican Members--and I appreciate Senator Carper breaking ranks and voting to uphold the budget--who wanted to vote for this and felt bad they were not able to allow the amendment to advance, but it violates the budget. So I was proud of that. I think it is the right thing for America. We can do this. I believe our message is being sent. We brought up a popular bill, the Sportsmen's Act, and I was for that, but it wasn't paid for or it spent more money than we agreed to in the Budget Control Act. So this amendment would have spent more money--$7 billion more than we agreed to. We blocked the Sportsmen's Act and it was $140 million more than we agreed to. The Senate said no, even though many of us liked what was in that bill. This was $7 billion above what we agreed to, and even with the good cause we said we should adhere to the limits we have. If we have new priorities that we want to fund, can't we find wasteful spending somewhere in our government? One of the dysfunctions we have, one of the reasons it is so hard to get something such as that accomplished and fund a new spending program without borrowing the money, just increasing the debt, is everybody is jealous of their account. How silly is that. We should all be focusing on the national interest. So when we say we are going to reduce this program over here and we are going to pay for the benefits for widows, people automatically say: No, you can't take my money. But it is all the taxpayers' money, isn't it? It is not this Senator's money or this committee's money, it is not this program's money. It is all the taxpayers' money. We have been in denial. We think business as usual is going to continue, but this country has never, ever, ever been in a more systemic, dangerous position with regard to our finances. Never. We have had expert testimony on that. So we have to be honest about it. We have to do the right thing. We can't have a Senator waltz in, even with something we would wish to support, and ask us to vote for it when it adds $7 billion above the amount we agreed to spend. I wanted to say that because it is a troubling situation for us. One more thing. The President of the United States is the one person who speaks for America. He is now pushing and advancing an agenda that seems to me to raise taxes. But will it reduce spending? No. It seems the new taxes are to fund new spending. Well, we don't have the numbers, so I am going to be asking him to see the numbers. I am the ranking member on the Budget Committee. I want to see how much new spending they have and how much new taxes they have, and if it is like what we have been seeing, there is a lot of flimflam. We had a budget projection that was voted down 100 percent, not a single vote. The budget he sent out earlier this year increased taxes $1.8 trillion but increased spending $1.4. So it didn't pay down the debt. I hope the President will look the American people in the eye and tell them we are on an unsustainable course. I have not heard him say that. Why won't he say that? His own debt commissioner, Erskine Bowles, said we face the most predictable debt crisis in our Nation's history. Why won't the President say we can't continue on this path and we have to change? Why won't he say we need to tighten our belt across the government? This is one of the problems we have at the end of this year. I wanted to say to my friends who may have seen this differently that those people who voted a few minutes ago to uphold the budget, not to waive the Budget Act but to stay with the budget agreement we signed, I believe were doing what they truly felt was in the best interest of America. I don't think they should be in any way accused of being hard- hearted. It is time for us to at least agree to stand by the numbers we have agreed to. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like just like to say that this amendment arose after Senator Webb expressed concerns at one of our Armed Services Committee hearing fundamentally that Iraq and Afghanistan are voting in their parliaments on the force of status agreements, and we are not even seeing the agreement here, so I appreciate his leadership and am glad to work with him on this piece of legislation. I think his work moves us in the right direction. We will talk with Chairman Levin to see where we are. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I couldn't miss the opportunity to express our appreciation for the services of Senator Webb. As all of us know, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded, he is a Vietnam veteran, one of the most highly decorated veterans in the entire war, a combat leader of men in fierce combat. He served the country in a number of different ways and in this Senate. Actually his book, Fields of Fire, remains the premier novel on the Vietnam War and is the most studied novel in colleges to this day about the war in Vietnam. So, at any rate, I just wanted to share those remarks while we had a minute here and express my appreciation to Senator Webb for his service to the country and to the Senate. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleagues for their courtesy. In fact, the President has given speeches calling for more spending. On Tuesday, he gave a speech in which he said he wants to use the tax hikes to ``invest in training, education, science, and research.'' When you are in a deep hole and you are borrowing almost 40 cents of every dollar you spend, shouldn't you constrain yourself and not start new programs? Or if you start a new, needed program, shouldn't you reduce some less valuable program to pay for it instead of just taxing to create more programs? Not once in the speech did he discuss entitlements. That is the largest item in our government, entitlements. Not once did the President of the United States discuss with the American people the problem that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are on an unsustainable path and are at great risk. Shouldn't the President honestly talk to the American people about that? He didn't discuss our $16 trillion debt and how the Debt Commission he appointed indicates that we are on an unsustainable path, heading to a fiscal crisis. He did not discuss the economic catastrophe that could occur if we don't get off this unsustainable path. The President should lead on these things. I don't think this is a partisan complaint. I am saying the President of the United States should be discussing with the American people the great danger of our time: the debt. The President will go out to the press and use the buzz words that say he has a balanced plan or a responsible path to deficit reduction. But where are the spending reductions? What is the plan? It seems to me the plan is to talk in general, to meet in secret day after day, week after week, the deadlines getting closer, the fiscal cliff getting closer. Then, under threat of panic, force through some deal that maintains the status quo: more taxes, more spending, more debt. And it will be presented to the Senate in a way that, if it is not adopted immediately, the country will be in great fiscal danger. This process needs to be taken out of the shadows. We need public debate, and then people would know the facts that are now being hidden from us, hidden from Members of Congress. We don't know what is going on. The latest article in Politico today said the deal--the so- called deal has been negotiated by the Speaker of the House and the President. Not even Harry Reid is in the meetings, apparently-- certainly not the Members of the Senate or the Members of the House of Representatives. If we had a public debate, people would discover that according to the CBO, mandatory spending is going to increase nearly 90 percent over the next 10 years. To get the country under control requires some real tough focus, but it does not mean we are going to have to cut spending dramatically, just reduce the growth of spending. Expenses on welfare are particularly interesting. Mandatory spending, that is, the entitlement programs of all kinds, is set to automatically increase 90 percent over the next decade. That is over half of our budget. We already spend $2.3 trillion on mandatory costs today in our budget-- this year we will spend 2.3 trillion--but we will spend $4.12 trillion in the 10th year from now. Those are the projected growth patterns we are on. This is a huge increase, and we do not have the money. People would also learn from public debate that welfare costs are now the single largest item in the budget, exceeding Medicare--larger than Medicare, larger than Social Security, larger than the defense budget. We spend enough on these poverty programs to send every household beneath the poverty line in America a check for $60,000, each family. That is how much we are spending. The President's plan apparently would not deal with that at all. Indeed, the Budget Control Act of 15 months ago that was passed explicitly failed to address some of the biggest items in that budget. I do not see how we can support a plan that does not at least begin to reform these programs and improve their operation. Is this going on in the secret talks? Are they talking about it or, like the Budget Control Act, is this off- limits, not to be discussed? Will welfare reform be a part of the framework of the settlement that will be dropped on the Senate? We do not know. Meanwhile, the President demands more taxes and refuses to do anything about waste, really. I have not seen any strong management leadership from this White House that gives me confidence that we should send more money. There are lavish conferences, duplicative programs, billions in refundable tax credits being mailed every year to illegal aliens or children not even in the United States--billions from their own department, the reports tell us. No one is managing this government effectively. Why should the American people send one more dime in taxes to Washington when we will not reform and manage the money we are already getting from them? The American people should not send more money to this dysfunctional government. They should insist that we fix what is going on here first.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks. I ask for 1 additional minute to wrap up.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Kyl's comments, and I share them. We are going to miss the most knowledgeable fiscal tax expert in the Senate, and his long career includes time on the Finance Committee. I thank Senator Kyl. I want to express some reservations about the negotiations that have been going on, as I understand it from reading the paper, involving the fiscal cliff. Over the last 2 years, Congress and the President have held an endless series of negotiations. There have been Gangs of 6 and 8, a supercommittee of 12, talks at the Blair House and the White House. But the only thing these secret talks have produced is a government that skips from one crisis to the next. Everything has been tried but open production of a 10-year plan from this Senate that is required by law, that would allow us to openly debate and discuss concretely the financial challenges we face today. All of this secrecy allows the President to position himself as being in favor of a balanced plan--which is what he says: I favor a balanced plan--while the only comprehensive proposal, to my knowledge, he has actually laid out was in January or February of this year when he laid out his budget. Of course, it was voted down unanimously. In both the House and the Senate not a single person voted for it. But he did lay out a financial plan for the country. He put it on paper. Basically, it increases taxes to fuel more spending. That is what the plan did. It increased taxes $1.8 trillion and increased spending $1.4 trillion over the agreement we just reached under the Budget Control Act in August, a year ago. So we reached agreement on 10 years of spending limits in August, a year ago. Then January, 6 months later, he proposes a budget that would increase taxes $1.8 trillion and spending that would increase another $1.4 trillion over that BCA baseline: tax and spend. Not taxes to reduce deficits but taxes to fund new spending. That is why the budget puts us on track to have $25 trillion in total debt at the end of 10 years--another almost $10 trillion in debt added to the current debt level. Insofar as I can see, that tax-and-spend policy remains his goal today. The White House isn't planning to raise taxes to reduce the deficit. It raises taxes, under their plan, to expand government. That is not acceptable. I don't believe Congress will accept such a deal if that is what is going on in these secret negotiations. President Obama campaigned on tax increases just on the wealthy, just on raising their rates, just only $800 billion in tax increases. But now the White House is demanding $1.6 trillion in tax increases. Don't the American people have a right to see where those taxes fall, who they will impact, and how much they are? Shouldn't the President lay out his plan? He is the President of the United States and the only person who represents everybody in the country. Will that remain a secret? Will it just be revealed to us on the eve of Christmas or the eve of the new calendar year? We will be asked to vote for or to ratify like lemmings, I suppose. The White House has repeatedly asserted they believe in $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes, which does not reflect sufficient spending cuts. But if the White House now wants $1.6 trillion in new taxes, where are the $4 trillion in spending cuts? Have those been laid out? Do we know what they would be? And this is over 10 years. These spending cuts would be very achievable if we put our minds to it.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to have the full 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleagues. I would say I am concerned about the nature of these secret talks, the fact that the Senate is really not participating. From the reports, it is only the Speaker and the President of the United States discussing it, and that appears to be--from what I picked up--to be true. Apparently, the majority leader is not intimately involved, the chairman of the Budget Committee is not involved, and the chairman of the Finance Committee is not involved. These are Democratic leaders in the Senate, certainly not Republican leaders in the Senate. The Senate is a great institution. We ought to be engaged, and the engagement of the Senate allows the American people to know what is happening. They are entitled to that. I really believe we can do better. We must do better. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I just to want follow up on the remarks of my colleagues Senator Kyl and Senator Ayotte. Last year, I asked for and obtained language in the Defense bill that would require the Defense Department to report on the effectiveness and need and ramifications of a hedging strategy for the United States, and that was due within 75 days of the bill being passed. My understanding is the Defense Department produced that analysis and they sent it to the White House as early as last spring and it has not been produced. So now we have the House having passed language that actually funds moving forward with a hedging strategy on an American-based system to give us a layered defense, which I think is probably necessary but because we have not gotten a report from the Defense Department it is hard to know. I would first say it is not acceptable that we have not received that report. It has gone on too long. I guess I and Congress have been too reticent in insisting that it be produced. I would say to the Defense Department and the administration, we expect that report to be produced. I don't want to cause trouble in your world, but it has been made, it has been sent forward, and it is time to have it come to the people's representatives who have to make decisions about how we are going to defend America. I will be using the various rights I have as a Senator to move that forward. I wish to quote from a story in today's Washington Times, referring to a statement made by Mr. Fereidoun Abbasi, who is Iran's nuclear chief. The article states: ``Iran will step up its uranium enrichment program by sharply increasing the number of centrifuges used to make nuclear fuel.'' There are some people still saying we don't know if Iran wants to go forward with a nuclear weapon. How could this possibly be? They have been subjected to the most rigorous sanctions that are damaging their economy. Yet in today's paper their nuclear chief says they are accelerating their plans to go forward. There is no doubt about what they are doing. I wish it weren't so. I truly wish it weren't so. I had hoped they would change their mind. Maybe they will change their mind, but it is false to say they haven't made up their mind and they are not going forward to build a nuclear weapon. That is so plainly obvious I don't know how anybody could ever suggest otherwise. The only question is, Can we somehow bring to bear enough pressure on them to get them to change their mind? There is a long article about that in today's paper. I was pleased Chairman Levin and both Democratic and Republican members of the Armed Services Committee produced a unanimous bill. Senator McCain, Senator Levin, both fine, wonderful leaders of our committee, and every member all signed off on the legislation. I think that speaks well for our committee. They also approved this language dealing with the failure of the Department to produce the hedging report--and it has a number of fact-finding points in it which I will share with my colleagues: The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has testified to Congress that . . . ``Iran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, and it is expanding the scale, reach, and sophistication of its ballistic missile forces, many of which are inherently capable of carrying a nuclear payload.'' That is President Obama's National Intelligence Director, and he is the man to make the final opinion on that for the President. Let me quote additional language from the committee: The 2012 Annual Report to Congress on the Military Power of Iran by the Department of Defense states that, in addition to increasing its missile inventories, ``Iran has boosted the lethality and effectiveness of its existing missile systems with accuracy improvements and new submissions payloads.'' Also in the report: North Korea warned the United States in October 2012 that the United States mainland is within reach of its missiles. I will wrap up, since I can't talk much longer anyway. We have to recognize the grim fact there are very dangerous countries with nuclear weapons--North Korea--or are rapidly developing them--Iran--capable of putting them on missiles and that have missile systems already. So North Korea has a missile system they believe can reach the United States right now. We need to be sure our defense system is sufficient. I wish it weren't so, but that is the way it is. I think the Defense Department understands this. I think the administration says it does, and we are doing some good things to be prepared for that. However, we have to confront this question of an east coast site, and we need this report. I believe we are going to need additional layered defenses, and we might as well prepare to do it. In the scheme of the entire investment in our national defense, it won't be the kind of expenditure that will break the defense budget. It is something we can work into our defense budgets. I thank Senators Ayotte and Kyl for their comments. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, that was a good debate. Senator Feinstein is always gracious and alert and smart in her arguments. I want to say one thing that is not in doubt. Some of my colleagues-- I think Senator Paul and others--have suggested that somehow the law of the United States has been changed in recent years, and we need the Feinstein amendment to fix it and restore the constitutional rights we are all entitled to. What I want to say, without any doubt and I think any fear of real contradiction, is this amendment alters the history of the United States, alters the long-term understanding of the rules of war, and places American citizens in a position where they cannot be treated effectively as an enemy of the state and detained, and actually be in a position to be released to continue their war against the United States. I think that is a bad policy. I agree with Senators Levin, Ayotte, and others who share their view. I am not quite able to understand--and I am not sure Senator Feinstein does--that this therefore establishes through understandings of Hamdi and the Supreme Court decision that therefore we can vote for it. I don't think it is the right step. I don't think we should alter the historical position of the United States that those who are at war with the United States are not treated as criminals. Southerners who were captured by Lincoln weren't released. When Washington dealt with the Whiskey Rebellion, he sent out Alexander Hamilton. They weren't given Miranda rights. They went out there to stop the rebellion. They were citizens. That is the way I feel about it. Amendment No. 3009

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business and call up amendment No. 3009.

Mr. SESSIONS. I wish to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3009. I understand it would not be voted on tonight, but I wish to get it pending.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would be glad to, if the chairman thinks it won't be a problem calling it up at a later date.

Mr. SESSIONS. It has been conveyed to the Senator's staff.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I withdraw the offer of calling up that amendment and my request to set aside the pending amendment, but I would share some thoughts about it. The amendment deals with the ability of the Congress of the United States to review any bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan. Congress was not consulted regarding the framework or the substance of the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that was signed on May 1, 2012. This agreement commits the United States to establishing a long-term bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan. In the past, Congress has been consulted and has sometimes provided its advice and consent to the ratification of these type agreements. The strategic partnership agreement, already signed by President Obama, is a legally binding agreement that committed the United States to various policies including those related to the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. It is broad and vague, and any further agreements entered into by the President that are based upon it should be reviewed by the appropriate congressional committees. The President and the Secretary of Defense have stated that the United States continues to fight in Afghanistan to defeat al-Qaida. While the authorization of military force authorizes the President to use any means necessary to prevent any acts of terrorism against the United States, his authority to enter into bilateral security agreements with Afghanistan should be looked at and reviewed at least by Congress. The bilateral security agreement will supersede not only the strategic partnership agreement--so this will be the bilateral security agreement--but additional memoranda of understanding related to special operations in Afghanistan and detainee transfers will be part of this agreement. The issues addressed in the forthcoming bilateral security agreement are too important not to require congressional review. The amendment would require the President to submit any proposed bilateral security agreement to the appropriate congressional committees 30 days before entering into the agreement. This is not unreasonable. Congress is exercising its role of oversight before the President makes long-term commitments that have significant ramifications from the size of forces that we commit to the legal authority of our commanders. So this will be a final agreement that will impact quite significantly the commitment--financially, militarily, and in blood--the human support of our members. There is a history behind these SOFA agreements. The Senate approved the NATO Status of Forces Agreement. We actually voted on it and approved it in advance. A formal treaty was used as an underlying source of authority for a Status of Forces Agreement on seven different occasions: Australia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines. Congress has voted and approved Status of Forces Agreements three additional times: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau. I hope Senator Webb is able to come over tonight. He has raised his concerns about this, and expressed concern in the Armed Services Committee that the Afghani and the Iraqi Parliaments vote on the Status of Forces Agreement, but our Congress is not voting on the Status of Forces Agreement. Senator Webb is a cosponsor of this amendment. And just to have that agreement, the full and complete agreement that commits the United States to be fully reported to the Congress of the United States I don't think is too much to ask. Right now, we don't have any indication that would happen, and there is some opposition to it. But why would that be a problem? Why would the administration not want Congress to know what our commitments are and what we would be expected to support? I believe it is a good amendment. Hopefully we can get it moved forward and maybe accepted; but, if not, by vote. I think we could handle it. I don't think it should cause the objection that some see in it. This does not require that the Congress have a right to vote to reject the amendment or approve the amendment. It simply says the agreement that is entered into, the SOFA, has to be produced promptly to the Congress. I think that is a reasonable position, and I ask my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask to call up amendments Nos. 3007, 3008, 3009, 3010, and 3013.

Mr. SESSIONS. And No. 3011.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the athletic director for the University of Alabama, Mal Moore. Coach Moore was born in Dozier, AL in 1939. He was recruited and awarded an athletic scholarship by the legendary coach Paul ``Bear'' Bryant. He played for the Crimson Tide from 1958-1962, including on the undefeated 1961 national championship squad--ranked #1 by the Associated Press and considered by many to be one of the best ever. He graduated from the University of Alabama in 1963, and began his coaching career as an assistant at Montana State. Having displayed leadership that clearly impressed Coach Bryant, Coach Moore was hired away from Montana State to serve as a graduate assistant at his alma mater, where he received his master's degree. From there he embarked on a highly successful 31 year coaching career, which included stints at Notre Dame, the NFL and for national championship teams under both Coach Bryant and Coach Gene Stallings at Alabama. In 1999, he was named the Crimson Tide's athletics director, a position he still holds. Coach Mal Moore is a champion. He has been a part of nine national championships--1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009 and 2011--with the first coming as a player, the next six during his coaching career and the most recent two during his time as athletics director. During his tenure as athletic director, Alabama has gone on to win seven national championships in four different sports: football in 2009 and 2011; gymnastics under Coach Sarah Patterson in 2002, 2011 and 2012; women's golf in 2012 and women's softball in 2012. In addition to the success the university has seen on the fields, courses and arenas under Coach Mal Moore, he has transformed the University of Alabama's athletics program, improving the University for all students and student-athletes. Coach Moore has raised more than $200 million for capital improvements to make the Capstone's facilities among the best in the Nation; improving Bryant-Denny Stadium, Coleman Coliseum, John and Ann Rhoads Softball Stadium as well as the soccer and tennis stadiums. His efforts to improve student-athlete academics have led the Crimson Tide to high graduation rates and have made Alabama athletes among the most competitive academically. Coach Moore's sizable contributions to University of Alabama athletics and academics have been noticed and recognized by the University of Alabama, the State of Alabama and nationally. In 2007, the Alabama football building was renamed the Mal M. Moore Athletic Facility. The Alabama Sports Hall of Fame named Coach Moore the Distinguished Alabama Sportsman in 2007 for his efforts as athletics director, and inducted him into the Hall of Fame in 2011. Recently, the National Football Foundation recognized Coach Moore with the John L. Toner Award, which is presented annually by the foundation to an athletic director who has demonstrated superior administrative abilities and shown outstanding dedication to college athletics and particularly college football. Coach Mal Moore has been part of the University of Alabama and Crimson Tide football as a student-athlete, coach and administrator for more than 50 years. He has left an indelible mark at the Capstone, and his leadership will be felt by Alabama students and staff for generations to come. It's a pleasure and honor for me to recognize a great leader, a great athletic director and a great man from the heartland of my State of Alabama. I look forward to enjoying the fruits of his labors for years to come. Roll Tide!

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2875, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, would cause the underlying legislation to exceed the authorizing committee's section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority and outlays. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the measure pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the budget portion of this bill. I share Senator Warner's support for the bill. I believe fundamentally it is a good series of policy initiatives that will help sportsmen in the long run. However, I am the ranking member of the Budget Committee and this bill violates the deemed spending levels agreed to in the Budget Control Act. Senator Warner is a member of the Budget Committee. Senator Warner is a member of the Gang of Six that is working so hard to develop a plan that we are supposed to trust will be executed if their plan were to be effected. It doesn't look as if they are making a lot of progress, but who knows? I salute their effort. The question is, if we lay out a plan to address our fiscal issues, will we adhere to it? Will we follow it? So I am a little bit taken aback that my colleagues seem oblivious to the idea and the concern that, plainly, the Sportsmen's Act legislation violates the Budget Act. The staff of Senator Kent Conrad--our Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee, who is retiring--has concluded and certified that it violates the budget because it spends more money than we agreed to spend on this item 15 months ago when the Budget Control Act was passed in order to raise the debt ceiling in America. I wish to tell my colleagues that I worry about things around here and about what kinds of agreements may be reached in the middle of the night--Christmas Eve, December 31st--to fix the fiscal cliff. We will hear: Don't worry, we have taken care of it. That is what they said when they passed the Budget Control Act August a year ago. I didn't feel good about it then, although it made some progress and it did have some limits on spending in various areas. So we did pass the Budget Control Act, and this will be the fourth time in 15 months we have had a bill on the floor that violates it. Senator Durbin earlier talked about the Simpson-Bowles Commission on which he served. Forty Percent of the revenue they raised was taxes. They said it was about 3-to-1 spending cuts to revenue increases when they were telling us about it. As I recall, they said it was 3-to-1 in spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases. But my Budget Committee staff and I looked at it, and I think it is closer to 1-to-1: $1 of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. It was a tax-and-spend bill, really. I wish it were better. It wasn't as good as people suggested. At some point before the election President Obama suggested we should have $1 in tax increases for every $4 in spending cuts. Now we see that Simpson-Bowles proposed a ration of almost 1-to-1: $1 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts. I am going to put out a statement today, but I wanted to correct something Senator Reid said and Senator Durbin said Sunday on the talk interview programs. Senator Durbin said Social Security does not add 1 penny to the debt--not a penny. I think that is pretty close to a direct quote. But that is not correct. Social Security is already in a situation where the amount of revenue from people's withholding is less than the amount of money being paid out to the recipients. We have now spent $27 billion more than we have collected in payroll taxes in the last 2 years. So where does the money come from? It is borrowed by the United States Treasury to pay for Social Security spending. Why? Because the U.S. Treasury borrowed the money. They took the surpluses that had been in existence until 2 years ago and spent them. But the Social Security trustees asked for the money they loaned the Treasury, in order to pay our retirees. They have debt instruments to establish the debt that they loaned to the Treasury. They didn't give it to the Treasury. It was the money of the Social Security recipients. That is whose money it was. So it was loaned to the government, their debt instruments showing the debt, and the Treasury pays the interest to the Social Security trustees. Now, for the first time, instead of having a surplus, which the Treasury can spend and buy votes with, we have a deficit, and boy, it is just beginning. It is already on a path to surge out of control and threaten the future of Social Security. How does the government pay the money it owes to Social Security? It has already spent the money it collected in past years. It is as if we borrowed the money from the bank, we spent it, and the bank says I want to be paid back. What happens? Well, the Federal Government borrows that money on the world market, through the sale of Treasury bills, and then they get that money and they pay Social Security. It is just beginning. It is already in deficit. It has added not 1 penny--it has already added $27 billion to the public debt of the United States of America. The Sportsmen's bill is legislation I strongly support. It came out of committee and I supported it, but it does violate the Budget Act. It is quite clear that it does. We can fix it easily. If we can fix it easily, we should fix it easily. Senator Conrad has certified that it violates the budget. Senator Reid has brought it to the floor under rule XIV, bypassing normal Committee procedures. The bill violates the spending limits we agreed to in August a year ago. The BCA limited spending in various accounts as part of an agreement to raise the debt limit. We reached a limit on how much we could borrow, and the President and others wanted to keep borrowing and keep spending. So debt in America continues to surge out of control. But the Republican leaders at the time said: No, until you agree to cut spending, we are not going to raise the debt limit, Mr. President. Just like the kid with the credit card, you don't get to keep spending unless we know you have limited some spending, at least. So that is what happened. The President and the congressional Democrats resisted that. They attacked Republicans as wanting to cut spending and throw the country into the abyss, but they--with no choice, really--finally agreed to spending reductions of $2.1 trillion over 10 years. Those reductions were based on 2011 spending levels. Flat spending in 2011 would have totaled about $37 trillion over 10 years. But the baseline for spending has natural growth in it and always has, as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office. CBO said that under current law, spending would be expected to increase to over $47 trillion over 10 years--$10 trillion or $11 trillion more. So this agreement would simply have reduced the amount of debt that could be added to the government from $10 trillion to $8 trillion over the next 10 years. It would reduce spending--some said it was horrible--it would reduce spending from $47 trillion to $45 trillion. Remember, we are spending about $37 trillion now. The American people were assured that this solemn agreement was a good step and Congress would follow what they agreed to and put into law. So another thing is that Congress cannot continue to breach even the modest spending levels we agreed to. We cannot breach those levels. It is a sick pattern and makes a mockery of law and responsible governing. Since the Budget Control Act agreement 15 months ago, this is the fourth spending bill that violates the law. How? Always Congress wants to spend more money--money we don't have. Remember, these four instances I have cited don't include the 13 appropriations bills because Senator Reid, for the first time in history--the first time in the history of the Senate, we believe--did not pass a single appropriations bill on time. Every one of them was placed in one continuing resolution and funded forward for 6 months. So we didn't bring those appropriations bills up and we didn't have votes on them. Who knows how many more budget violations would have occurred in that. So the bills we are talking about are bills such as the Sportsmen's bill that is before us now. I will object to the legislation because it violates the 10-year spending limits passed into law 15 months ago. But, of course, that does not end the matter. Senator Reid--and I am sure he will, or his designee--will simply ask the Senate to override the law. They will make a motion to waive the statutory spending limits and, poof, if 60 Senators agree, we waive it and spend the extra money. No problem, except the Budget Act will be violated once again. So at a time of unprecedented spending, unsustainable debt, and low public confidence in Congress, should we not adhere to even the smallest spending limits that have been enacted? Should we again violate the Budget Control Act for a mere $14 million a year--a mere $14 million a year--when this could easily be fixed? I say ``a mere $14 million'' because we deal with billions of dollars on a routine basis around here. So $14 million is a lot of money, but compared to what we spend and the ability we have to find savings in this vast government, it is not a lot of money. And shouldn't the President, who negotiated and signed into law the Budget Control Act, object to his Democratic leaders' violating the spending limits he agreed to and negotiated last summer a year ago? Shouldn't he make it clear that he will veto any bill that violates the statutory limits we agreed to? Of course, he has not done so on this bill or any of the other four previous bills that would have violated those spending limits. The words in the Budget Control Act, I have to say, appear, in his mind, to be words he never agreed to in his heart. Maybe he agreed to them on paper, maybe he signed the paper, but in his heart he never wanted to sign that agreement, so it is no problem for him to waltz in here and agree to spend more than he agreed to last summer. He is postmodern, as you know. Words are just a momentary thing. They can be reinterpreted a little later to better match what we meant to say my heart of hearts. This is why this country is in financial trouble, in my opinion. Amendments my staff and I have tried to suggest that would fix this problem are being rejected, and the good groups such as Ducks Unlimited and other groups say: No; we don't want any changes. We say: Let's see if we can't get the money for the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund through another way, some of the other spending in this bill or some other savings throughout the government. Why can't we find the money and help fund migratory bird conservation, which I believe in, and maybe we can do that in another way without violating the budget. They say no. But I will say to my friends at Ducks Unlimited and other groups that support the bill, they were not here 15 months ago. They did not vote on a bill that said we are going to limit spending to this amount. I did. Every Senator here told their constituents that Congress voted to limit spending to a certain amount and we would not go above it. I understand Ducks Unlimited and other groups have a special interest and a deep concern, and I share it, to help maintain our great heritage of hunting and conservation in America. I understand that.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 additional minutes to wrap up.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will just say, we have responsibilities to the budget, to the Treasury. I will promise one thing: If we go back home and talk to duck hunters, as I do, and hunters on a regular basis, they think we are spending money like crazy. They think we do not adhere to any agreements. So I do not think the average duck hunter would be concerned if we slowed down a little bit and sent this bill back to committee and had it paid for so we did not violate the budget. In fact, I think most of the people I know would be very supportive of us doing that. This proposal is a tax plan, pure and simple. The CBO and the Office of Management and Budget--President Obama's Office of Management and Budget--say the duck stamp fee is a tax. It is a tax, and Congress has always set the amount of it. This bill--I do not like this--we fixed this in committee, but Senator Reid has brought up a bill without those fixes. The committee bill would have said Congress sets the amount of the tax on the American people, not some unelected Secretary of the Interior. Why should he have the unilateral ability to raise taxes on Americans? It has never been done before. It should never be done. It violates good, sound principles of government in America and actually I think it would violate the Constitution to do that. It is certified by OMB and CBO as a tax. Also, I hear it said it would actually reduce the deficit. If we raise taxes by $145 million and then we spend $140 million, we can go around and say: We reduced the deficit by $5 million. But I asked Senator Warner and other colleagues have they researched this budget of ours to seek to find an additional $140 million? If we are going to raise the duck stamp by $140 million, if we are going to raise it by that amount, why wouldn't we reduce the deficit by $140 million instead of just $5 million? Those are the decisions families and small businesses make when they deal with these challenges in their budgets. They are required to make choices. One thing this Congress seems to always want to avoid is making choices. Since they can find nothing else in the entire Federal budget that would pay for this bill, this sportsmen's bill, it would indicate to me it is not a very high priority. But the truth is that is not exactly true. The truth is, they never looked to find anything else they could cut that is wasteful or duplicative. In fact, there are over $900 million in existing wetlands conservation programs today. Nobody has sought to examine those programs to see if they could be more efficiently run and probably it would free up that much money right there. I know the pressures. I know how this system works, but the people who drafted the Budget Control Act were aware of how Congress likes to spend. They specifically intended not to allow us to spend more by taxing more. They set explicit levels on how much we could spend. Therefore, this bill violates those spending levels, even though it has taxes there, and, as a result, it violates the budget and should not pass in its present form. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.