Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I will add one more thought to the costs, and I have looked at this very carefully. On December 23, the night before the bill passed, I got a letter back from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, who also had stated it would create a surplus in the bill of $143 billion based on conventional accounting procedures. I asked him: Were they not double counting the money, about $400 billion? Were they not double counting it, counting it as income to Medicare and counting it as money available to fund the bill here, President Obama's ObamaCare? Weren't they using the money twice? Think about that. Here we are on the eve of a vote, December 23, the vote is tomorrow morning, December 24, and we are not agreed on whether the money is being double counted. He wrote back and said it is being double counted, ``although the conventions of accounting might suggest otherwise.'' The way they scored this bill was carefully done by experts to get the score they got, that it would make a surplus of $140 billion. But the money was Medicare money. They raised taxes for Medicare. They cut costs for Medicare. It created some money in Medicare, but the money was borrowed by the U.S. Treasury and spent on this new program. The money is owed to the Medicare trustees, who are trustees by law. They are holding debt instruments from the United States. But because it is an internal debt, it doesn't score. That may seem complicated, but it is not. Trust me, they borrowed this money. Sooner or later, when Medicare is going into deep financial distress, they will call their bonds from the Treasury and the Treasury is going to have to pay it, and they are going to borrow the money on the open market is what they are going to do so they can pay the Medicare trustees the money they borrowed from them. This is not a good way to do business. That is just one of the additional problems we have with this. But, I thank Senator Johnson for focusing on all these issues but particularly for raising the cost of the exchanges. Because that, by any estimate--wouldn't the Senator agree--is a dangerous number. It could surge above the number we are at. Does the Senator think most any person, even if they thought it would be 1 million people, would have to admit it could be 5, 10 or 20 million people? Nobody knows for sure.

Mr. SESSIONS. We have to know that. We have a responsibility, as representatives of the people, to understand are we talking about another $100 billion in cost over just 1 year's time that we weren't expecting. I believe the Budget Committee is a good forum to have that. The Senator and I serve on that committee, and I hope Senator Conrad can agree and would agree to give Secretary Sebelius an opportunity to state her view of the situation. I have to say, I am more and more convinced that we cannot afford this health care bill. We cannot afford it. We don't have the money. We don't have the money. I think it will damage health care, and we have had a lot of debate and experts tell us that, and it will reduce the quality of care in America. But what I am saying to the Senator is, we can't afford it, and it threatens the financial viability of our future. We need to save Medicare and Social Security, the programs we have. It would be a terrible tragedy if we start off on another program. As the Senator talked about Medicare 30 years ago, 40 years ago, it surged way beyond any estimate they would ever have expected in terms of costs. If we start on another program, I don't see how this country can sustain it. The entitlements we have today are now taking up about 60 percent of the entire budget of America: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Over 50 percent, almost 60 percent of our entire spending goes for those three programs. To start another massive new program, when those are all unsound financially and in crisis and need to be fixed, is the height of foolishness, in my opinion. I hope we can have a good hearing. I thank the Senator for his leadership; he is a great addition to the Budget Committee. I thank him for spending hours digging into these numbers, bringing his business and accounting skills to bear, and letting our lawyer bunch benefit from somebody who can actually add and subtract.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Johnson from Wisconsin and I be able to conduct a colloquy.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a friend and the former mayor of Montgomery, AL, Emory McCord Folmar. He passed on from this life on November 11, 2011, and I wish to honor Mayor Folmar's courage and service to his country, the State of Alabama, and the city of Montgomery. Mayor Folmar was born in Troy, AL on June 3, 1930, to Marshall Bibb Folmar and Miriam Woods Pearson Folmar. At the age of 14, the Folmar family moved to Montgomery, AL, where he graduated from Sidney Lanier High School in 1948. Mayor Folmar attended the University of Alabama, where he earned a B.S. in business in just 3 years. During his time at the Capstone, he served as a cadet colonel in the Army ROTC and was a member of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity. Upon graduation, Mayor Folmar received a regular Army commission and was assigned to the parachute training and instructors' school for the 11th Airborne Division of the 2nd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, GA. He married Anita Pierce in February 1952, immediately prior to his deployment to the Korean war theatre later that summer. During that intense conflict, Mayor Folmar was wounded in combat and received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart. He also received the French Croix de Guerre for his actions with the 23rd Regiment of the 2nd Infantry Division and French troops. Following the Korean war, he was assigned to Fort Campbell, KY, as an airborne jump master until 1954. Mayor Folmar was then and until his last breath a true American patriot who loved, respected, and defended the men and women who serve our Nation in uniform. As everyone knew, this was a part of his very being. Emory and Anita then moved to Montgomery, where he joined his brother, James Folmar, to run a successful construction and shopping center development company. In 1975 Mayor Folmar was urged to enter political life and run for the District 8 seat on the Montgomery City Council. He was elected president of the city council and became mayor of Montgomery in 1977 in a most remarkable election. He was elected mayor with 65 percent of the vote, despite having 57 competitors. Mayor Folmar went on to serve as mayor for 22 years until 1999. Mayor Folmar was a fiscal conservative who was most proud of the financial health of the city. He was famous for maintaining a balanced budget and establishing a healthy reserve fund. Mayor Folmar was also known to walk municipal ditches and visit public property in order to ensure that municipal services were operating at peak performance. He would often say, ``It's not what you expect, it's what you inspect.'' He was perhaps one of the greatest mayors in the history of Alabama and one of the best in America. He was honest, courageous, a superb manager, and, quite noticeably, direct and plain spoken. In 1980, Mayor Folmar served as State chairman of President Ronald Reagan's finance committee, and in 1984, he served as Reagan's State campaign chairman. In 1982, Mayor Folmar ran a competitive race as the Republican candidate for the Governor's office in Alabama. Mayor Folmar also served as the State campaign chairman for Bush-Quayle in 1988 and again in 1992. After retiring from politics, Mayor Folmar worked as a business consultant and then was appointed commissioner of the important Alabama Beverage Control Board in 2003 by Gov. Bob Riley. He served the State in this role until 2011, doing superb work making the department leaner and more productive. On a personal note, I had the pleasure of working closely with Mayor Folmar when he served as campaign chairman for my first campaign for the Senate in 1996. I will always appreciate and remember his support throughout the years and his leadership in Alabama. Those of us who knew Mayor Folmar know also that he was a man of faith who was an elder at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Montgomery, AL. Governor Riley noted how impressed he was with Mayor Folmar's wisdom and scriptural knowledge. Emory Folmar had the reputation in Alabama as an extremely intelligent, hard-working, honest, and headstrong leader. He was all that and more. His dedication to serving the Nation in military conflict and to serving the citizens of the State of Alabama and city of Montgomery, AL, as a public servant will continue to inspire others for generations to come. We shall miss his leadership in the public arena. I feel quite privileged to be a U.S. Senator and to have the honor to pay tribute to Mayor Emory McCord Folmar's life and service to this great Nation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to remember Mr. James Lucien ``Jimmy'' Hinton, who passed away on December 3, 2011, in Tuscaloosa, AL, at the age of 88. He was one of Alabama's best known and respected citizens. Mr. Jimmy was born in Tuscaloosa on April 8, 1923. He grew up in the Little Sandy community, attended the University of Alabama in the 1940s, and served in the U.S. Army. In 1958, he married Jean Jolly and they had three children: Jimmy, Jr., Mary Katherine, and Elizabeth. He loved his family and enjoyed spending time at his farm, Sedgefield Plantation, in Dallas County. Mr. Jimmy was a highly successful businessman and involved in many businesses during his lifetime, starting his own sawmill company at the age of 16. He was engaged in the lumber business, real estate development, a box and pallet factory, automobile business, asphalt business, and the family owned a meat-packing company, R. L. Zeigler Co., Inc., where he served as chairman of the board. He also served as a board member for the First National Bank of Tuscaloosa and Southern United Life Insurance Company. In 1999, he was inducted into the Alabama Business Hall of Fame. Mr. Jimmy loved his family very much and particularly enjoyed hunting and fishing with them and his many friends at Sedgefield. He often opened Sedgefield for national and State field trials and also allowed hunts for persons with disabilities and terminal illness. He began the first Life Hunts for such hunters over 25 years ago, and many have benefited from his care and concern. He supported a host of worthy causes over his life. In 1998, Jimmy received the Governor's Award and was named Conservationist of the Year for his dedication to conservation in Alabama. He was a passionate supporter of the University of Alabama and its athletics program. Paul W. ``Bear'' Bryant and he were famous friends. He served on the University of Alabama Presidents Cabinet and the Board of Visitors of the Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration. I knew Mr. Jimmy for a number of years. It was easy to see why he engendered such affection and respect. A decisive and strong man, certainly, he nevertheless was totally unassuming. That background of country living, his love of hunting and the outdoors, his success in business, and his association with athletics at the iconic University of Alabama combined in a special way to shape who he was. People saw him for who he was. There was a rare combination of strength, modesty, and loyalty deep in his character. And to a very unusual degree, this remarkable businessman, who never sought the limelight, was well known and loved throughout our State. Alabama and the Nation have lost one of its finest citizen. My sympathy is extended to his family upon this loss, but they have been given a wonderful heritage of industry, humility, and public service.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Portman for his comments and for his leadership on the Budget Committee. We have three fabulous new members on the Budget Committee in Senator Toomey, Senator Portman, and Senator Ron Johnson, who are with us and will share their perspectives as new members on the Budget Committee. At a time of fiscal crisis, as Senator Portman has described, it is very important the leadership of America speak honestly to the American people about the challenges we face and how we plan to go about fixing them. That is right. That is fair. That is just. It is wrong, it is unfair, and unjust to spin plans, to misrepresent the impact of policies in a way that confuses the American people and our colleagues in Washington about what is going on. So our colleagues who are here understand the numbers. They are going to make some very good points. I will just say, as a member of the committee and the ranking Republican, I am disappointed the budget does virtually nothing to change the debt trajectory we are on from the agreement we had last year and, in the course of it it raises taxes considerably and raises spending considerably, although the Budget Director was so reluctant yesterday to acknowledge it raises spending. But it does raise spending in any fair and objective analysis of the situation we are in today with the current trajectory in the Budget Control Act we agreed to last year. So we are at a crisis, and we need to have leadership that looks the American people in the eye and tells them of the crisis we are facing, the difficult challenges, and lays out a plan on how we can fix it. We can fix it. If we put ourselves on a sound path, we will have more growth and prosperity than a lot of people predict. I thank Senator Portman for the opportunity to share these few moments and for the contribution he and our other colleagues are making to this important national debate.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this morning we had the Budget Committee hearing and the testimony of Mr. Zients, OMB Director, who works for the President and prepared, under the President's direction, the budget they submitted to Congress for the United States for fiscal year 2013 beginning October 1. It is an important document. It is important because in it the President lays out his plan for what this Nation needs to do not just this year but for 10 years, during a time in which our debt crisis remains the No. 1 threat to America. That is what the experts from the President's own debt commission told us--we have never faced a more predictable economic crisis if we don't change our course of borrowing. We are now spending $3,700 billion a year and taking in $2,200 billion, borrowing 40 percent of what we spend. So it was an important hearing. I was deeply disappointed that our new Director, Mr. Zients, seemed to be focused on one thing; that is, regurgitating the talking points he had been provided and steadfastly avoiding answering simple, important questions put to him by members of the committee. We have two members of the committee here who I think will be sharing remarks about what we talked about today and how we need to address our debt crisis--Senator John Thune and Senator Kelly Ayotte. They were there and participated and asked questions. I think we all agree it was one of the worst witness performances in terms of being responsive to the questions that we have seen in our time in the Senate. I hate to say that. I know he was told not to say anything, just to keep repeating the talking points. But when America is facing a financial crisis and you are asking the budget director fundamental, simple questions, you expect and have a right to expect answers, not for me but for the American people. He does not work for the Obama political campaign; Mr. Zients works for the American people. He is a man who has access to the foot-thick, four-volume budget that was sent out, and he helped write it. It was written under his supervision. So we should be able to get straight answers immediately from this gentleman. For example, I asked a simple question right off the bat: Does the President's budget spend more money than the agreement we reached last August over raising the debt limit for America? Does it spend more or less? And it went on for 4 minutes, and I kept repeating again and again: Well, is it more or less? Finally, at some point he said the President's budget would spend less, and that is not accurate. It spends at least $1.5 trillion more. So the budget director can't get straight whether or not the President's budget spends more and is $1.5 trillion off? A trillion dollars is a lot of money. I felt strongly about it. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see Senator Thune is here, and he has been through a lot of these matters and a lot of hearings during his time as part of the leadership here in the Senate, and I would ask him how he felt about the hearing this morning and the issues our country faces.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleague. I know Senator Ayotte wanted to be on the Budget Committee. We had a host of fabulous new Senators who wanted to be on it. We got four, but many more wanted to be on it. Senator Portman, Senator Toomey, Senator Johnson, and Senator Ayotte were selected. I would say I know how disappointing it was because we talked about how we didn't even mark up a budget last year. So the people who wanted to be on there to participate in the great issue of our time--the debt this Nation is facing--got no ability or option or opportunity to participate in the debate because the majority party in the Senate decided that was not what they wanted to do. The majority leader said it would be foolish to have a budget. It is very sad. The President's budget represents an opportunity and a responsibility to guide this Nation for the future. The President has no higher duty, no higher responsibility than to help the Nation avoid an obvious crisis. Mr. Bowles and Senator Simpson, who chaired President Obama's debt commission, looked us in the eye and issued a joint statement on the Budget Committee last year about this time that said the Nation has never faced a more predictable economic crisis. What they were saying was if we don't change what we are doing, we are headed to a crisis. Mr. Bowles, President Clinton's Chief of Staff, said to us that this crisis could happen within 2 years. I saw yesterday on the television, ``Morning Joe,'' Mr. Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations talk about Greece. He is internationally recognized. He said the United States could be having this next year. I would say what is stunning to me is that when we look at this budget, it does not change the debt trajectory. We have looked at those numbers. We have looked at those numbers and it does not change the debt trajectory. It increases spending. It increases taxes. And, at the end of the day, based on current law that we achieved last year-- minimum steps, but they were achieved--the Budget Control Act numbers that would allow the debt to increase to $11.5 trillion next year, under the President's budget that he asserts reduces the deficit by $4 trillion, the deficit would increase by $11.2 trillion--almost no change at all. We need big change. He took away some of the spending reductions and replaced them with more tax increases--the reductions we painfully agreed to last August. I am disappointed in the President's leadership on that. The Senator from South Dakota has been here and dealt with these issues. Maybe he has comments about it. I will yield to him.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from South Dakota says ``directly impact.'' The way I read the Reinhart-Rogoff study and what I think I hear the Senator saying is that this isn't just that a debt crisis might happen--and those can happen quickly, as they warn in their book, that a crisis can happen when we are at this debt level out of the blue, things we never expected, and we are in serious financial trouble, like our 2006-2007 financial crisis that nobody predicted. But I guess what I am saying to you is, they also indicate that huge debt can impact economic growth today. And they say, when your debt reaches 90 percent of GDP, your debt is that much that it will slow growth by 1 to 2 percent. We are already at 100 percent of GDP. Does the Senator think it is possible their study, based on empirical data, might be telling us that the debt, right now--because it weakens confidence and drains investment capital--that our debt now could be slowing our economy?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator for his comments and his leadership on all these matters that relate fundamentally to job creation and economic growth. Tax increases do not facilitate economic growth. And when you surge debt, it increases more and more pressure to raise taxes. A lot of people in my State say: Jeff, the debt is being run up so you will have to raise taxes. That is what they planned all along. Whether it is true or not, we are finding that. So we need to take steps today to put this country on a sound financial course. To demonstrate how impactful the debt is, this year the interest on the debt we will pay--of the entire $3,700 billion we spend, $225 billion will be spent on paying the interest on the money we borrowed. A lot of people do not understand, when you borrow money, you pay interest on it. And the interest rates at this point in history are some of the lowest in history for a developed economy. But the President's own budget--the tables he has in his own budget, the assumptions he has about the expenses we will have to pay--assumes that 10 years from today we will not be paying $230 billion but $850 billion. That is more than Social Security. That is more than Medicare. That is more than the Defense Department. That is 10 times what we spend on food stamps. It is multiple times what we spend on education and highways--maybe 20 times what we spend on highways. And we are talking about a highway bill today and trying to find the money to keep it on a basic level of funding, to find the money for that, and this interest is going to be hammering us every year because we are running extraordinary deficits every year. The American people are not happy with us because they know there can be no excuse for spending $3,700 billion and taking in only $2,200 billion and borrowing 40 cents of every dollar, having to have interest be the fastest growing item in the entire budget of America, and soon to dwarf the Defense Department, even Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. This is not right. This is bad policy. There can be no excuses. The President--the man who is captain of the ship--is having lunch somewhere while the ship is heading to the shoals and not providing any leadership to get us off this path. In fact, worse, I would say, the President attacks people who propose serious solutions. Paul Ryan in the House worked hard on a budget. They laid out some good proposals that would have changed the debt course of America. It was a historic budget, do you not think, I say to Senator Thune. We can disagree about parts of it, but he was attacked by the President, who himself proposes nothing. And the leadership in this body will not even bring up a budget. He said it was foolish. Why is it foolish? Because if we have a budget debate on the floor of the Senate, people get to offer amendments, and they get to debate the honest depth of the danger this country faces, honestly, openly, and you have to vote on it, and the majority leader does not want to have to have his Members vote on it because he wants to avoid responsibility for facing the greatest crisis this Nation is facing. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appointed by President Obama, said: The greatest threat to our national security is the debt. That is true. It is out there. If we do not deal with it, we are going to have a crisis. I am disappointed at this whole process. I was disappointed at the hearing today. I thought we got irresponsible answers. I think the budget is irresponsible. It in no way deals with the main drivers, as Senator Thune has said: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps--all entitlements. Those are not even touched in any serious way. Increasing at 8 percent, the highest growth rate predicted by the President in their 10-year budget is 4 percent. So these programs are increasing twice the rate of GDP. That is unsustainable. It is unsustainable. We need some leadership around here to confront it, and we do not need a President who attacks people who have the courage to actually lay out some plans to fix it.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share some remarks about the President's budget which he submitted today. This is it--the real budget. The President asked that the press pay for their copies this year. Maybe that will save a little money. It is a real document that is submitted every year by every President according to the law. Although the law also requires the Senate to pass a budget every year, we have violated it for over 1,000 days. In fact, the majority leader, Senator Reid, said it would be foolish for him to produce a budget--foolish for our colleagues to produce a budget, and I can only assume he thought it would not be good politics. It would not be foolish for America to have a budget. I will make a commitment that if I have anything to do about it and this Republican conference were to achieve a majority in the Senate next year, we will have a budget. It will change the debt course of America. It will be 10 years. It will be a document that brings debt under control and, to the maximum extent possible, will encourage economic growth. That is a responsibility that leaders have to deal with now, I believe. The President has produced this budget that claims to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion--I will talk about that--but it does not reduce the deficit $4 trillion. Basically, it doesn't reduce the deficit at all. This is his fourth year as President. This is the last budget of his Presidential term. He has an opportunity to lay out a plan for the future--to suggest what taxes we ought to have, how much spending we should have, where we can save money by reducing spending, what we need to do in the short run, and in a 10-year term, 20-year term, and 30-year term, all of that can and should be dealt with. The President, like a Governor or mayor of a city that is in financial trouble, or a State that is struggling financially--they have to deal with their debt. They present their proposals, they fight for them before the legislature, they make compromises, when necessary, and that is how they do their business. But because we don't have a constitutional amendment that requires a budget to be balanced, it becomes easier to borrow the money, not cut spending, and continue the deficit course we are on. I am the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, and for the few hours we have had the budget, and the few hours we have had over the weekend to see some of the tables, we have reached a number of conclusions that are not good. I would say a couple of things. At the Budget Committee hearing last week, Senator Conrad--who is the chair of the committee--announced we should have a $5 trillion reduction in spending over 10 years--not 4--and also said, he wishes to see a balanced budget. I think Senator Conrad is right on both counts. But he has basically been told if he even has a budget in committee this year, it won't be brought up on the floor. So I don't know what we will do, whether we will have a budget markup or not. But Mr. Bernanke indicated during that same hearing that when you reach debt levels as high as we are today--gross debt being 100 percent of the gross domestic product--the country is at risk, particularly when inevitable shocks in the world occur and you don't have the margin of strength necessary to perhaps ride out those crises. And we could go into crisis. I happened to see this morning on MSNBC that Mr. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said we could have a debt crisis next year. Talking about Greece, he said we could have a Greece-like crisis next year, and he laid out the scenario. This is the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the most prestigious world organizations around. Here are some indisputable facts about the budget before us. First, there is no $4 trillion deficit reduction. There is not a $4 trillion deficit reduction. I know that is hard to believe. We are talking about a difference of $4 trillion. When the President submits a budget, and we worry about all these accounts, and then we are $4 trillion off, well, it is a hard thing to imagine. But I will explain to you why I say that. What we know is this: Under the President's budget and the numbers he has provided us, based on his growth projections and other projections that are in it, he projects when 10 years are up--in 2022--we will have added to the total debt of America $11.2 trillion. We will have added that much debt. Every year, hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, with the lowest single year being $575 billion worth of deficits. The debt increases annually each year. So it would be $11.2 trillion higher. Under the Budget Control Act that passed last summer that had the sequester in it and the reductions in spending--under that--if left unchanged. And that is the current law. This budget deals with what to do now--what to do on top of the current law we have. Under the Budget Control Act, the debt would increase over 11 years by $11.5 trillion-- perhaps $270 billion less debt accruing under the President's budget than current law. Well, that is not much. The budget deficit this year is $1,300 billion. We are talking about $11.5 trillion--that is $11,500 billion. So we are going to reduce that $11,500 billion by $270 billion or so and claim somehow we have changed the debt course of America? It is not true. The American people are tired of this. It is this kind of talk, this kind of misrepresentation and gimmickry that has gotten us to the point where the Nation is on a fiscally unsustainable path, as every expert has told us. Indeed, we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that is spent this year. So we take in $2.5 trillion and we spend $3.8 trillion. That is not an acceptable path, and we have been told that. We have seen these gimmicks before. I have a bill called the Honest Budget Act that tightens up on a lot of the more common, smaller gimmicks that need to be eliminated. My bill is called the Honest Budget Act. But let me say we have never seen gimmicks this large. They are so large it is hard to believe anyone would attempt to use them, but so large people don't think it is possible the administration would not be completely truthful in asserting them. For example, the budget the President submitted for this year claims credit for cuts that occurred last year as part of the budget control process--the $2.1 trillion in Budget Control Act cuts. He claims he is cutting the budget counting those numbers. Those are not the numbers we are operating under today. Those have already been done. That is one of the biggest spins I think we have ever seen in terms of making numbers look better than they are. But there is more. Amazingly, this budget eliminates--erases--the $1.2 trillion in Budget Control Act sequestered spending reductions. We can argue whether they are done in the right way and whether some, particularly Defense, are taking too big a cut under that sequester, but we should not give up on the sequester. We should not acknowledge the sequester is not viable. And to say the $1.2 trillion we agreed to cut less than a year ago is no longer operable and we are going to spend that money and not cut any more is a stunning reversal. It is the kind of thing that validates the charges we hear from the American people: Oh, yes, you promised to cut money in the future--you have a 10-year plan to cut spending--but we know what you politicians are going to do 5 years, 3 years, 6 years down the road, when those spending cuts come up. You are going to say, oh, we can't do that. We have constituents who are complaining. We can't cut this or that. And we will put the money back in and the savings will never occur because they are false promises for the future. People have complained about that, and correctly so. That was part of the tea party movement--a growing disrespect for the integrity of Congress when it makes projections for the future. But look at this: In August, we agreed to $2.1 trillion in total cuts including $1.2 trillion in the sequester. Less than a year later, the President says, oh, that is too much, we can't do that. We are going to spend $47 trillion in the next 10 years, but we can't cut 1.2, when we are facing the biggest debt crisis the Nation has ever faced? What kind of world are we living in? No wonder we are going broke. And people are out to hide what we are doing. I don't think it is right. The President says, yes, I am not cutting that $1 trillion, I am going to spend the $1.2 trillion. I am going to spend that, but don't worry, I am raising taxes to pay for it. But his budget prognosticators and commentators and his promoters, in their statements about this budget, claim it reduces the deficit--this tax increase does--by $1.2 trillion. Well, if you increase spending 1.2 and raise taxes an equal amount, you haven't saved any money; you just are not increasing the debt any more than you would have. So we have eliminated the cuts, making spending go up, and then we raise taxes. That is a wash. That is not another $1.2 in savings. That is how they get the $4 trillion. That is a sad state of affairs, to claim credit for that in a way that is not fair. Then we have the problem with the war cost. I was disappointed at the State of the Union when the President said we are going to spend half of the war savings on highways. Well, I am for highways. I would like to spend more on highways. I am unhappy we have diverted money to general stimulus spending instead of being spent on highways, as was promised. However, the President said we are going to spend half of the savings from the war on highways. But there are no war savings. Congress has treated this war throughout as an emergency. The attack on 9/11 we treated as an emergency. The money was borrowed. Every dollar spent on the war has been borrowed. There is no source of money being paid out to the war so that when the war costs drop you can grab that money and spend it. There is no money there. When the war cost drops, the American people have a right to expect we will borrow less money or that we don't have to borrow as much. But they are claiming the natural reduction of war spending creates a surplus of money that can be spent. How illogical is that? There is no money in the war budget account. It is all borrowed. There was never any money to be saved in the war account, only less money to be borrowed as the war came down. Whoever thought the war would continue at $100-plus billion per year? We always expected those costs to come down. It has been a long, difficult process, and I am glad to see we can bring troops home. Hopefully, we are doing it in a way that is not risking the efforts thousands of Americans have given to our country to put us in a position to withdraw successfully. I hope we are not going so fast we will jeopardize that. Well, what about taxes? The President has been arguing for some time that, well, we can't cut the deficit without tax increases. I know we have to cut spending, but we can't cut the deficit without tax increases. We have to have more tax increases. First he said he wanted a tax on the rich that would bring in $800 billion. Now, this budget calls for additional taxes of $1,900 billion--$1.9 trillion--in new taxes all across, in a lot of different areas. But at any rate, this is what we are talking about. In his statement released with his budget, he said there was 2.5 in spending reductions for every $1 of tax increases. We have been talking about, well, what should be the ratio? Some people say: Look, I know you shouldn't have 1-to-1 taxes increased for every spending reduction, but we have to get the deficit down. We have to reduce the deficit. And you Republicans who don't like taxes, we will talk about 4 to 1, $4 in spending cuts for $1 in tax increases. The President said in the spring last year 3 to 1, and that was a figure that was being bandied about. But what does this budget do? Is it 2.5 to 1? Is it 3 to 1? No. Their statement that it is 2.5 to 1 is utterly untrue. I remember people telling us if we raise taxes, they would not reduce the deficit. They will spend it. We have heard that over and over again, and that maxim is certainly proved by this budget. The taxes that are in this budget are used to pay for more spending. There are no spending cuts in the budget. The budget calls for $1.5 trillion in increased spending, and the taxes are on top of that. So the taxes are not going to be used to reduce the deficit, just like people have suspected all along that is not an accurate statement. But, indeed, taxes are used to create more spending to create even bigger government. What about the debt size in its entirety? What are the numbers there? Let's look at this chart. The red is the increase in deficits over the next 10 years as occasioned by the Budget Control Act that is the current law that was passed last August-September, and the President's budget is the dotted line. So if we look at what is occurring over the 10-year period, we are starting at $15 trillion in debt today. Where does it end up? It ends up at $26 trillion in debt under the Budget Control Act that saved $2 trillion, supposedly. I guess that would have reduced the total debt from $13.5 trillion to $11.5 trillion. We have made some progress. We all knew that wasn't nearly enough, but it was at least a step. Our Democratic colleagues didn't want to cut any more money, so that was the number reached last year and we agreed we needed to come back and do some more work. The President's budget, which claims to reduce the growth in our debt by $4 trillion, actually only reduces the growth in debt less than $300 billion, from 11.5 to 11.2. That is not enough. We have had expert after expert tell us we need $4 trillion to $5 trillion to $6 trillion. Many believe we ought to put this country on a path to a balanced budget and stay there, as I do. We can do that. So the numbers I would say, $273 billion, only alters this red line by the slightest amount, not nearly enough to make a difference in the financial markets, not nearly enough to create confidence in the business community the United States has a plan for its future that will work. Furthermore, the President's plan does not provide any noticeable effective effort to do something about Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid--these programs that are moving every year gradually and inexorably out of control, into default, and will endanger those programs for future generations. I think that is a serious criticism we should make. Finally, I would note the interest on the debt. What do we pay on the interest of the debt? This year this Nation, in 2012, will pay $225 billion in interest on the debt. That is almost half the entire defense budget. But under the plan submitted by the President--and these numbers I am quoting from are in the President's own budget, and I am simply restating the numbers his Office of Management and Budget have determined. Interest in 2022, 10 years from now, will be $850 billion, from $225 billion to $850 billion. The increase in interest alone exceeds the defense budget; $850 billion exceeds any item, including Social Security and Medicare, in our budget today and certainly exceeds the defense budget. It would be the fastest growing item in the entire budget because when we run up debt and we go from $15 trillion gross debt to $26 trillion gross debt--and we have extraordinarily low interest rates today. They will not hold. Some think they are going up more than the President estimates in his account. But when we add the interest changes and the large amount of additional debt added, it goes from 225 to 850, crowding out spending for a host of programs that we are going to have to deal with. Where are we going to find this 500 billion? By the way, this is 1 year's interest payment, not 10 years. In 1 year we will be paying $850 billion. So we take that $500 billion a year and run it on for 10 years and we are talking about $5.7 trillion in interest to be paid over 10 years. What about the next 10 years when it is running $1 trillion a year in interest as we age and our entitlement programs continue to go into default? Mr. John Hinderaker, an analyst and blogger, has suggested that this whole debt we are seeing today and this claim of $4 trillion in savings is why we should never have had the secret negotiations all year. The President has asserted all year that he had a plan to save $4 trillion. I guess this is it. What does it do? Nothing. Does it change the debt course? No. It leads us on a course that is unacceptable. It does not deal with the surging entitlements that indeed count for over half of the spending already in the United States of America. Entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security are already nearly 60 percent of the Federal Government's spending. How can we control spending if we don't even talk about those programs? And they are growing faster. The only thing growing faster is the interest on the debt. So we have a deep and serious challenge to bring those programs under control. I would just close by saying that our debt course has not been altered. Our debt course is unsustainable. We now are moving to $26 trillion in debt. I remember last year when the Chairman of the Fed, Mr. Bernanke, testified before the committee and said something to this effect: You see those projections of your spending and debt trajectory? And in the outyears, you have these projections and what it is going to be like. Basically, he said: You are not going to get there because you are going to have a debt crisis before that happens, before those years pass. Mr. Erskine Bowles, the man chosen by President Obama to head the deficit commission, with Alan Simpson, they signed a written statement to the Budget Committee last year, and they said: The course we are on will lead America to the most predictable financial crisis in our history. So we can clearly see the path we are on. It is a path to financial crisis. We have to realize we cannot continue to put this off, and I find it deeply disappointing that the President of the United States, in his fourth year in office, lays out a plan that does nothing to improve the financial status of our country, does nothing to talk and deal seriously with our entitlement programs. Indeed, what he has indicated is that anybody else in Congress, whether it is Congressman Ryan in the House Budget Committee or Members of this Senate who have the temerity to make any suggestions about containing and saving Social Security and Medicare, will be attacked by him. So not only is he not proposing a plan that would help the situation, he is lying in wait to politically go after anybody who seriously proposes changes that can put America on a sound debt course. I don't think that is acceptable. I am deeply disappointed in the budget. I wish it would have been so much better because I truly believe he could have had support from Congress to do some things of a historic nature. They were discussed in some of these secret committee meetings but never came to fruition. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 18 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today, state of the Union day, marks 1,000 days since this Senate has fulfilled its statutory responsibility of passing a budget. This is not a little bitty matter, and it implicates the leadership of the Democratically controlled Senate and their willingness to address the American people honestly and effectively concerning the very significant financial threats this Nation faces. Indeed, President Obama, on April 29, 2009, when we last had a budget, said this: A budget serves as an economic blueprint for the Nation's future. That is true. It is not an insignificant document that just has a bunch of numbers; it is a blueprint for the Nation's future. We either have one or we don't. He went on to say a budget is necessary ``to lay a new foundation for growth and to strengthen our economy.'' I believe that is certainly true because the whole world, our own economy, U.S. businesses and investment, and the American people are concerned that we don't have a plan for our future that gets us off of the debt path--some would say an economic growth death path--that we are on. They want to see that we have a plan to do better. We will have a speech tonight. I suspect it will be grand in sound and have some popular phrases. But the question is, when it is over will we have a plan that can be examined? Will we have a plan that will lead us on an improved--dramatically improved--debt path or will we remain in business-as-usual mode, in denial? A budget resolution is legally required by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. It was passed because Congress hadn't been passing budgets effectively. So the Congress passed a law and said we must do it. We are going to require ourselves to do it. By law the President must submit a budget to the Congress by the first Monday in February. The President has submitted one for 2012. He submitted it to the Congress last year. It was not a good budget. It was what I have called the most irresponsible budget ever submitted to Congress. I chose those words carefully because we have never been, as a nation, in a more systemic danger from debt as we are today. Our population is aging. Our growth is not solid. The number of people on Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security has increased. We need growth and prosperity. We are in danger if we don't change it. That is why the world is worried about the United States. That is also why Europe is having such a serious problem. So it is important that we have a budget and we lay this out. So the law requires the President to submit the budget to the Congress by the first Monday in February. We did it last year. It was not a good budget because it increased spending, it increased taxes, and it increased spending more than taxes. Over the 10-year budgetary window or plan, it increased the debt more than if we had not had the budget, if we had just gone on automatic pilot for spending growth in our country. That is why it was a failed budget plan. When the Senate finally voted on it--I brought it up after the majority leader brought up the House budget to try to defeat it. I brought up the President's budget and asked my Democratic colleagues if they supported their President's budget. It failed 97 to 0. Not a single Senator voted for that plan because it was irresponsible. It put us on a worse course than we were already on, and nobody wanted to be on record as voting for it. Now, once the President's budget has come in, the Senate Budget Committee, by law, is required to report a budget resolution to the Senate by April 1. Congress is required to complete action on a concurrent resolution on the budget no later than April 15. It is a challenge. In the past it has been a real challenge. People have worked hard to meet that goal. Last year, while the Senate did not act, the Republican House met its requirements under the Budget Act to consider and pass a budget resolution in both their Budget Committee--Congressman Paul Ryan's committee--and in the full House of Representatives. The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, however, did not even offer a budget for consideration in committee, which precluded its consideration before the full Senate. The budget process exists in one respect to compel the President and Congress to set forth a plan for the disposition of the taxpayers' money for the upcoming fiscal year and a minimum of 4 fiscal years. The budget has to be a 5-year budget. Often it is 10 years. The President submitted a 10-year budget which I think is preferable to a 5-year budget, and most people agree. Setting forth such a plan requires setting priorities; does it not? A household does a budget. A city, county, or State does a budget. They have to choose with their limited resources the priorities they can fund and determine how to use those scarce dollars, which in our case includes discretionary spending which is subject to the annual appropriation process, as well as the mandatory spending programs which are provided for under the rules set forth in permanent law. Those programs include food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and a lot of other programs. So mandatory spending programs currently comprise almost 60 percent of our spending. They are on automatic pilot. If a person reaches a certain age or if a person loses their job or their income falls below a certain level, they are entitled to certain benefits. A person can walk into a government office and ask for food stamps or ask for governmental assistance, and if that person qualifies it must be given whether the government has any money or not. If those programs are out of control and are growing too fast and are not properly managed, Congress has to change laws, not just change the budget to deal with it. So this is almost 60 percent of our budget today, the mandatory part. So the budget process, through the use of reconciliation, is the only mechanism available to Congress to compel oversight and review of mandatory spending programs. Without the discipline provided by the budget process, these programs proceed on automatic pilot. So, importantly, the numbers that were deemed by the Budget Control Act, which was passed last summer in the wee hours of the morning just to avoid a governmental shutdown, that Budget Control Act, not subject to any amendments and not brought up for debate, set spending levels. But it could only set the number for discretionary spending. The Budget Control Act effectively told Chairman Conrad to provide discretionary spending at the levels of the Budget Control Act caps and for mandatory--the 60 percent--to stay the same, and revenue policies-- taxing policies--at levels estimated in the Congressional Budget Office March 2011 baseline. So mandatory spending and tax increases and tax policies would be controlled by the Congressional Budget Office baseline, business as usual--the definition of business as usual for 60 percent of our budget. So the so-called deemed budget is not a real budget, and the process used to adopt it is not the kind of process that is legitimate. It is not the kind of process that is required. In the Budget Act, we must have a committee markup. We must have 50 hours of guaranteed debate on the floor of the Senate and an unlimited number of amendments can be offered--a public, open discussion about the dangers facing this country and how Senators are going to deal with them, and they have to vote and they have to vote multiple times. The Democratic leadership, supported by Democratic Members, did not want to go through that process. That is why the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, said it is foolish to have a budget. He did not mean it was foolish for America to have a budget. He meant it was foolish for them to have to vote publicly and be accountable for the serious challenges facing this country. I think that was a big reason for the shellacking a lot of Members of Congress took in the last election. The American people want Congress to be accountable. Congress works for them. We are not on our own up here to do whatever we want to. The American people are watching us. Forty cents of every $1 we spend is borrowed. Are the American people not legitimately unhappy with us? Why should they be satisfied with Congress? Why should we be looked up to as people who are leading the country effectively? We will not even bring up a budget. I just want to say, the Republicans fought for a budget. I am the ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee. We pleaded with the majority. We protested. But the leadership in the Senate has the power to set the agenda, and a minority cannot call a budget hearing in the Budget Committee, nor can they require a real budget to be brought forth for full debate on the floor of the Senate. So this is where we are, I just have to say, because our colleague, whom I truly respect and like, Senator Conrad, was saying we do not need a budget today. Apparently, they are not going to produce one again this year. That is not right. We do need a budget, and we need to go through the process because the American people need to know what the debt commission told us; which is, we do not have the money to keep spending as we are spending today. So a real budget would have required a weighing of the spending demands placed on the Federal Government and the available revenues and reached a consensus on what activities the government would pursue and how the government would pay for it, including the amount that would be added to the debt--how much are we going to increase the debt and how much will be left to future generations. So the failure of our Democratic leadership in the Senate is to not seriously and credibly address our mandatory spending programs, which all experts and observers tell us are on an unsustainable course. Everyone tells us that. What we are doing today is unsustainable. For example, the budget the President submitted calls for deficits every single year for the next decade. It goes from about $1.3 trillion now-- it was going to drop down, for the lowest single year, to a deficit of $740 billion, and in years 7, 8, 9, and 10, it would be going back again to almost $1 trillion. We spend this year $650 billion on Social Security. By the 10th year, according to the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the President's budget, the interest we would pay on the debt alone--just the interest--would be $940 billion. Today it is $240 billion. This is how we get into the European crisis. This is why experts and economists have told us our spending and debt situation is unsustainable. That is not a frivolous word. They mean it is unsustainable. Contending that the creation of the supercommittee absolved the Senate of that responsibility to produce a budget is laughable and it is not credible and I reject that. Instead, we are told that the deeming of a budget and spending caps--and only discretionary spending--determined in secret and brought out in the eleventh hour before the Senate for an up-or-down vote, without amendment, to avoid a government shutdown--to contend that meets the requirements placed on this Chamber for responsibility and fiscal rectitude just cannot be sustained. Nothing could be further from the truth. Passing a real budget is indeed not easy, particularly now because we have such a serious financial crisis. Tough decisions are going to have to be made. Perhaps our Democratic leadership does not want to show Americans how much their big spending agenda truly costs. That is what a budget shows over 10 years: how much we plan to spend, how much we are going to cut, how much we are going to tax. Maybe they do not want the people to know how much they intend to raise taxes and how much of that falls not just on the rich but on the middle class. I can show you the budget the President submitted. It goes beyond the rich. It was a big tax increase. The failure to propose and openly debate on the floor a detailed, long-term fiscal plan may be considered by some to be smart. But it is sending our country toward the fiscal cliff. Our Democratic colleagues wish to pretend for the Nation that they have an actual budget plan. If they want to do that, they must find in their files the secret document they produced last year and finally, once and for all, make it public. Senator Conrad said: I have a budget. He said: We are going to have a committee markup, and I am going to present to our conferences the majority's budget plan to the Budget Committee. He was prepared to do that. He was prepared to do that, I thought. I was ready to get prepared to have the hearing. So when we got ready, somehow it did not happen. It got put off. It got put off again. Then, in the days that followed and we made a fuss, Senator Reid eventually said, basically: I made that decision not to have a budget. It is foolish to have a budget. So we never saw this budget. He said publicly they had one. Are they ashamed of it? Were they afraid to bring it out? Did no one want to see it? We were prepared with our little calculators to see how much taxes were going to increase, how much spending was going to increase, how much debt was going to increase. When are we going to change our debt trajectory and make the country better, put us on a sounder path? That is what we wanted to know, and we were told we were going to get it. We did not. So instead of an open, accountable process, where the public votes are taken, where our constituents can hold us responsible for the leadership we provide, we got, at the eleventh hour, deals, a month of secret meetings, and political maneuvers. The primary aim of the process, it looks to me, was political advantage, not the advantage for the people of the United States. So I believe when the majority leader and his majority colleagues chose to block the lawfully mandated budget process and not bring up a budget--not have committee hearings and actual votes, not have 50 hours of floor debate, not being able to allow amendments that deal with the budget and spending--they put politics over the Nation's interest. They rejected a duty they have, by all just deserts in logic and also by law. They did so for their political convenience. I think if they continue to fail to produce a budget, to allow it to be discussed, to show what their plans are for the future, they have forfeited the leadership they have asked for in the Senate. If they cannot produce a budget and they do not have the gumption to lay out their plan for the future and have numbers that can be studied and examined, added and subtracted--if they cannot do that, if they are not willing to face up to that responsibility, they do not deserve to lead the Senate because, at this point in history, I think it is the most significant matter we face. Our economy is not doing well. Our debt is surging. This year, the debt came in, as of September 30, another $1.3 trillion. Three consecutive years of deficits over $1 trillion, averaging $1.3 trillion. Can you imagine that? The highest deficit President Bush ever had--and it was too high--was $450 billion. But for 3 years we have averaged $1.3 trillion. The debt is surging out of control, and the Budget Control Act that purports to change that trajectory only reduced the projected deficit over 10 years by $2.1 trillion, when every expert--Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives--before our Budget Committee told us we need to have $4 trillion over 10 years in reduced deficits. Because under the projections we have from the Congressional Budget Office, we are on track to add $13 trillion more to the debt in 10 years--$13 trillion more--doubling the now over $13 trillion in debt we have. That is why we cannot continue. We need a plan to change that. Instead, we got a minimum reduction, I guess, from approximately $13 trillion to $11 trillion out of the Budget Committee. So we will add $11 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years rather than $13 trillion. That is not enough change. Mr. President, $4 trillion, in my opinion, based on the studies and the hearings and the testimony of the witnesses I have heard, is not enough. We need to do a good bit more than that. The House proposed a better plan by far. It would have changed our debt course, but the Senate did not do its responsibility to meet that challenge or the position of the House. I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts. We look forward tonight to the President's State of the Union. I hope he will do more than do his normal eloquent processes and lay out a real plan, a plan that can be studied, a plan that can be evaluated, to put this Nation on a sound fiscal course. Because until we do that, jobs will not be created, and we will not see growth. There is a lack of confidence in our economy, and the greatest foundation of that lack of confidence is the debt. I will just add briefly, there are things we can do to create growth and jobs without an increase in spending and without increase in debt. How do we do it? We eliminate every single regulation that is unwise. We reform our Tax Code into a growth-oriented Tax Code as much as possible. We produce more American energy and stop making policies that prohibit the production of American energy, creating American jobs, creating wealth in the United States, stopping the export of that wealth to Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or other places such as that. We have to end this health care bill that was passed. Already, health care premiums for average Americans have gone up--for a family of four: $2,400. Already? It was supposed to bring those costs down. That is a hammer blow to the middle class. So we are talking about jobs, growth, progress. Those are the kinds of things we need. We can do it without more government debt and more government spending. That is what I will be looking for tonight. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was saddened over the holidays to learn of the death of a good man and friend, Judge Lionel ``Red'' Noonan of Mobile, AL, at the age of 86. Judge Noonan was a wonderful man. He knew it was all about service to others, and the courtesy, ease, and empathy he displayed to all he came upon was noticed and appreciated and remembered. Many think good politicians are the smooth folks, always ready with the right words, always thinking, always plotting, but Judge Noonan was a great politician because he served his constituents with grace and it came back to him in respect and in votes. As a practicing lawyer in probate court, he always treated me the way he treated everyone. I was a rock-ribbed young Republican and he a loyal Democrat, yet I couldn't have been more fairly treated by him. I had always heard, from my Republican friends, what a good man he was. As I have gotten older, I have come to see that in a place such as Mobile, where people really know one another, those who have good reputations are invariably good people. Judge Noonan's good reputation was justly earned over a lifetime of honest dealing. The Republicans were always hoping that he would switch parties and join them. That is in itself a high compliment to be courted by two parties. But to the Democrats he remained true. Judge Noonan retired in 2001 after serving 18 years as the Mobile County probate judge. Prior to that he had served 8 years in the Alabama State Senate and was a 4-year starting fullback for the Alabama Crimson Tide after World War II. He and his wonderful wife Ruby have been a fine team. They have always been active politically for causes they believed in in the classical sense of the American ideal of good government and what is good for America. Of course, there is the sausage making part of politics. Sometimes, it is not all cookies and cream. Politics can be tough. Yet, for Ruby and Red, it was always about what would make Mobile, AL, and America a better place, and I have always admired that in them. His wife Ruby has lost a great partner, his children, Ruth, Kelly, and Lionel, Junior, a great father and mentor, and Mobile, one of the best loved citizens to ever have walked the streets.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are, as a nation, facing difficult financial times, and I for one believe it is true that the middle class in America is suffering economically to a degree that is unusual. It needs to be thought about, it needs to be addressed. I have a number of ideas about what we should do, and they don't include raising taxes and spreading the money around. I don't believe that is the right direction for the country to go. That is essentially the view of President Obama. As he says he is for the middle class, he taxes people at even higher levels and would do those kinds of government programs that he believes will work. At a most fundamental level, I am convinced the greatest thing we can do to strengthen America--strengthen us financially, strengthen job creation for the middle class--would be to do the things that allow growth in the private sector. There are a lot of things we can do that will not cost this Treasury a dime. Indeed, one of the greatest threats to the American economy is the debt that hangs over us like a cloud. It is inhibiting growth and investment and prosperity. We have to get this Nation on a sustainable path, not the unsustainable path we are on. I have been disappointed, frankly, at the leadership of the President. He has not understood this. He believes that the way to do it is through governmental borrowing, taxing, and spending. That is not the way to get out of this fix. One of the most dramatic things that are coming up before us today is the Keystone Pipeline. This is precisely the kind of project this Congress could take action on to ensure that it occurs because it will create lots of jobs, create wealth, make us more secure as a nation, and help bring down the cost of energy. Low-cost energy is the best possible way to create even more jobs in America. We compete in a global marketplace, and the extent to which our industries can have cheaper energy, they can hire more people, make more widgets, and pay more taxes to the U.S. Government and to States, cities, and counties. The construction of the Keystone Pipeline would run from Alberta, Canada, to Texas refineries along the gulf coast. It adds a number of miles of pipeline, although it will also use existing pipelines that are in place now. We have thousands of miles of pipelines around the United States. Building a pipeline is not unusual. We build them over and over again. Many pipelines run through our State, and they provide the low-cost energy that helps us to be competitive and create jobs. This construction project alone would add 20,000 American workers, high-paid American workers, jobs not funded by additional debt that we borrow to try to artificially create jobs. They are real construction jobs. Experts tell us it would likely lead to the creation of more than 100,000 jobs overall. This is a significant number. In addition, as I said, it would make us more energy secure and make us more able to contain the growth in the price of fuel because it would provide a large, competitive source of fuel for America. When fully operational, the pipeline will transport 700,000 barrels a day. That is almost half of the amount of oil the United States currently imports from the entire Middle East. Mr. President, 700,000 barrels a day is almost exactly the amount of oil we import from Venezuela, and that is not a friendly country to us. Hugo Chavez and his team there are a dangerous threat to the hemisphere. Much of their wealth comes from the oil they sell to the United States. I am not saying that we cannot buy on the world market and that we should not buy from Venezuela, but why in the world would we deny ourselves the right to purchase 700,000 barrels a day from our friend, our fine trading partner, Canada, our neighbor? There is a strategic political interest of significance here too. How will the Canadians feel if we reject this pipeline when great effort, time, and years of investment and study have gone into it? This plan to build a pipeline is supported by a bipartisan coalition, Democrats and Republicans, including many Democratic Governors, such as Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, along with a number of Democratic Senators and Congressmen. It is not a partisan issue. Seven Governors of States that will house the pipeline have come out to voice their support. Each State through which the pipeline will pass is supportive of the pipeline. Those encouraging the pipeline also include labor unions, such as the Teamsters, that together represent about 25 million workers. Remember, this is a jobs program that will create high-paying jobs, and many will be for union workers. Yet the President has blocked the pipeline construction for some time, deferring a decision now until after the next election. Many argue that it is not hard to conclude that this is a political decision and an attempt to avoid alienating the liberal anti-energy environmentalists or those who favor the pipeline, such as his union supporters. I don't know the politics of it. All I know is that I cannot find a single sound reason not to proceed. I know it would be tremendously economically beneficial to America. We must address the true, structural, long-term problems that are hammering our economy and middle-class workers in America, robbing them of opportunity. We had before the environmental committee a couple of days ago a witness from Alabama--Van Richey, the CEO at ACIPCO. This is a 100- year-old company where the CEO/owner a number of years ago turned it over to the employees. Mr. Richey testified their number of employees has gone from 4,600 to 2,900, and that the pipe industry in America is down 30 percent--the entire pipe industry. Think about that. These are real jobs. These are people who built their lives around good-paying work at ACIPCO, and over a thousand of them are now not working. I don't know what they are doing. Hopefully, they found something, but it is unlikely to be the kind of solid manufacturing job they had. We must pursue reforms that make our economy stronger and more productive, restoring confidence and allowing for sustained economic job growth. Consider a few of the biggest challenges we face. One of them is the health care law. Promises were made. The President insisted it would reduce health care costs, but health insurance premiums have increased $2,200 per family since 2008. The Congressional Budget Office warned us this health care bill was not going to bring down costs, and, in fact, the bill has brought costs up. That is money out of the pockets of American families that they do not have now to spend in the marketplace because it has to be spent on their health insurance. We need to get the government out of dominating and regulating areas of the economy for which they have no experience or ability to operate in an effective way. Instead of allowing the production of American energy--energy from this country--the President has blocked commonsense energy production while sending stimulus dollars to favored green corporations that are not producing and are going bankrupt in serious numbers. A recent study found that almost 190,000 new jobs could be created next year if energy production in the Gulf of Mexico, where I live, returned to pre- moratorium levels. Think about that. If we went back to the pre- moratorium levels on production, it would add 190,000 jobs and bring in more American wealth. Instead of having to buy our oil from Canada or Venezuela, it would be our own, keeping our wealth at home and creating jobs at home. The moratorium was imposed after the oil spill. We had expert testimony in the environment committee there is a new device that has been prepared and is now ready to go that could be put over a blown-out well, such as the one we had, so that in a matter of days it would stop the leak. They eventually did that, using a cap. Instead of 90 or 100 days, within a few days you could cut off a leak like that. It should have been there to begin with, in my opinion. It was a very significant failure of management not to have such a safety device. But it is now available. I also believe the permitorium--the inability to get permits--has cost us a lot of jobs. Now that the complete ban is over, you can get permits, but they have been slowed down dramatically, and huge rigs, capable of drilling in the deep gulf, have been moved to other places in the world and are not producing. It would have cost United States taxpayers virtually nothing to put an intensive effort into reviewing the dangers in the gulf, doing it quickly, and putting this industry back on track before so many of those production rigs moved abroad. Also burdensome, intrusive regulations have undermined job creation and hurt small businesses. The average number of rules costing the economy over $100 million pending during 2001 to 2006 was about 72. Under this administration, the average number is 130. In fact, over 180,000 jobs will be lost each year from 2012 to 2020 as a result of four EPA rules that impact the regulatory structure of the electric industry. These are dramatic events. It would cost the Treasury of the United States not a dime to not follow through on these dramatic rules, one of which is the boiler MACT rule. I have never heard so much concern from my constituents over that rule. Hopefully, it will be part of the legislation that moves the payroll tax holiday. That legislation would also change the boiler MACT rule. That would be a tremendous relief for the American economy. The point is, these rules cost the economy, cost jobs, drive up our cost of production, and make it more difficult to be competitive in the world marketplace. We don't need that. Every single rule that is effective needs to be maintained; every single rule that is unnecessary and drives up cost should be eliminated. Yet we are still adding rule after rule, and it is costing jobs. President Obama has continued to ignore China's abusive currency devaluation process which undermines the rule of law and is decimating American manufacturing. I was pleased to work with my Democratic colleagues in the Senate to pass legislation that would require the government to respond to legitimate complaints of businesses that can prove they have been damaged by the deliberate manipulation of China's currency. You can't have a good trading relationship with a country that is cheating you; that is not playing by the rules. Are we going to sit by year after year and allow factory after factory to be closed because we are unwilling to confront this on some sort of religious, economic, free-trade theory because they sell us cheaper products? If they cause our businesses to lay off thousands of workers or to close down, should we thank them because we get a cheaper product? But how long will it be cheaper? I don't go for that. I think we need real leadership here. It wouldn't cost the Treasury a dime if we stood up and protected our workers on the world competitive stage; if we backed them up and ensured our businesses have fair trade. We would create jobs without adding to the debt. We would create jobs that pay more taxes and reduce the debt. This trade manipulation and unfairness does enormous damage to the middle class. The number of U.S. manufacturing sites fell from 397,000 in 2001 to 344,000 in June of 2010. That is a real manufacturing decline. It is not inevitable. In fact, I am convinced we have a chance to have a renaissance in manufacturing in America. If we keep our energy costs down, if we don't have unnecessary regulations, and we create a tax policy that is good, I think we might surprise ourselves on how well we can bounce back. Because the cost of manufacturing in other countries is going up dramatically--and we now have, with our technology, our infrastructure, and our high machinery utilization--we can be competitive in areas we haven't been competitive in before. Manufacturing employment peaked at 19 million in 1979, with 11.7 million in February of 2011. I don't think this country can be healthy and strong economically, I don't think it can have an effective presence strategically and militarily around the world if we don't have a manufacturing base. I don't see how it can happen. What are people going to do? They say we will go into the service industry. Well, how many people can make a computer? As a matter of fact, most of these technological advancements, such as our super TVs and computers, are made abroad. It is a competitive world, but we can be more competitive. We can take back some of that manufacturing, I am convinced. I also believe at a time of high unemployment we need to be sure the immigration laws of this country are enforced. The very idea we should relax our laws and shouldn't insist they be enforced at a time when we have almost 9 percent unemployment makes no sense to me. We need to get American workers working, not imported workers taking jobs from Americans. It is that simple. We have to protect our legitimate national interest. If you want to have open borders, I am willing to discuss that and say we should have totally open borders. But if you don't--and no nation in the world does, to my knowledge--then you must create an immigration system that serves your national interest and creates jobs for American citizens wherever possible. America's $15 trillion debt is destroying jobs and confidence in the economy. The debt itself is the largest we have ever seen. The annual deficit is the largest we have ever seen. It dwarfs any deficits we have ever had before, and it is continuing year after year. President Bush, in his last year in office, had the biggest deficit he ever had--$450 billion. It was one of the largest deficits in the history of the Republic. President Obama's first year in office saw a $1.4 trillion deficit. It has been $1.3 trillion or more for the last 3 years. This year, CBO was predicting the deficit would come in at a tad under $1 trillion--$970 billion. But if we pass this tax holiday, we will add $200 billion to the debt just like that. So next year, we will be at $1.1-plus trillion, if the Congressional Budget Office's projections are true. This is a serious matter. The debt is a threat to us. We have to quit running up the debt. We have to quit borrowing so we can spend. That is all this tax holiday is--the government borrowing the money so people don't pay into their pension plan--Social Security. I am uneasy about that. It weakens the moral component of Social Security and it clearly adds to our debt. Social Security is on an unsustainable course. This bill would do nothing to fix the unsustainable course of Social Security. It says we don't put in the money we have been putting in every year for the last 60 years, I suppose. How can that do anything but weaken Social Security? And it absolutely increases our debt and will show up on the score by the Congressional Budget Office. I am the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee. It is so painful; I would love to be able to support--and I won't say I won't support--this tax holiday. But it is not sound policy in the long run for America. We can't keep chasing after and borrowing money to spend, because the debt is so large. We now have a debt equal to 100 percent of GDP, our gross debt. We have never had anything like this before. So it is time, indeed, for a middle-class agenda, an agenda that helps and strengthens this country. We don't need more dishonest spending, politicians promising favor, promising to give people something the government doesn't have to give, spending money we don't have, to try to buy votes with it. We don't need any more of that. The net beneficiary of all this seems to have been the political class, not the middle class. So what do we need to do? A good, sound program means creating jobs through the private sector, putting a stop to crony capitalism and favoritism, producing more American energy, and making our government leaner and more productive. That is good for the economy: creating a long-term debt reduction plan so that every investor and businessperson and American citizen will say, well, we are on a path now that is sustainable, not on a path that is unsustainable--as every economist has told us; adopting a globally competitive Tax Code, a Tax Code that enhances investment in America, enhances expansion in job creation, not one that inhibits growth and job creation. We need to confront illegal immigration at the border and at the workplace and serve the national interests. We need to uphold the rules of law in trade and quit acquiescing to those who cheat and manipulate trade rules to their advantage. I don't believe we can sustain that over a long period of time. I do believe that has hammered jobs and manufacturing in America. We need to eliminate unwise and damaging regulations. Any burden placed on individual Americans or businesses in America that does not pay for itself in benefits should never be imposed. We have too much in that category. Finally, delivering to the good people of this country the honest and responsible government and budget they deserve. The sad fact is, we have now gone 961 days without a budget. I think that shows the irresponsibility of this Congress. I was disappointed when the Democratic leader in the Senate said it would be foolish to even attempt to bring up a budget this year, and he was not going to do it for the second year. This is really, really dangerous; a country that is suffering the greatest debt and deficits we have ever had, to not have a budget is utterly and totally unacceptable. I can't imagine a party wanting to be the leader of the Senate that will not even bring to the floor a budget, as required by statute, required by law. The House passed one. They passed a historic budget, a budget that would have altered the debt course of America, put us on a sound path. The Republican leadership in the House summoned their courage and produced a budget that would reduce spending, alter the taxes in America in a way that would create more growth, and brought it forward. So Senator Reid thought he was clever. He knew Democrats wouldn't vote for it because it would actually cut spending, and he brought it up so it could be voted down. But over 40 people voted for it. I brought up at the same time President Obama's budget--the most irresponsible budget ever submitted, one that would increase taxes but increase spending more and increase debt more than if we didn't have that budget. So I brought it up and said: Well, let's vote on the President's budget. Zero votes, 97 to 0, against that budget. We need to be sure the people who run this country understand that the American people are not happy with us. How can they be happy? We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. We are on an unsustainable debt course, and we don't even have a budget and refuse to bring up one. It is just unthinkable. We will end up in the last of this session heading into Christmas with some conglomerated-together, massive omnibus bill, a last-minute tax holiday bill, and somehow we will muddle forward and continue spending for the government so it will not close down. But all of this should have been done months ago. There is no reason it has to be held to the last minute except it gives the leader more power to manipulate, and it gives Members of Congress less opportunity to know what is in it. It gives the American people less opportunity to know what is in it. So I am not happy. I don't think the American people are. I think they are rightfully disappointed with us. Somehow we have to get this country on the right track. It will require tightening our belts. We cannot continue to borrow and spend at this rate. A lot of people are going to be disappointed that things they hoped to receive they will no longer be able to receive. But the country will not sink into the ocean. It will not. This country is strong. All we have to do is do what they are doing in New Jersey and doing in Alabama, beginning to do in some of the other States that have been deeply in debt, do what Senator Warner did as Governor of Virginia: manage the economy and balance the budget. I appreciate his leadership in the Senate to try to produce something worthwhile for the Nation. So we can do better, and we have to do better, and the American people are entitled to it. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we will be voting, I understand, on three pieces of legislation from the House. One is a massive omnibus bill that would include 9 of the 13 appropriations bills that should be brought up individually and voted on individually, with amendments on each one. They have all been cobbled together now at the end of the year in one giant omnibus bill, with only a few hours for us to review their contents. In addition, there will be a vote to offset certain emergency expenditures--in other words, pay for these new expenditures with savings elsewhere in the government rather than borrow the money for it--add to our debt for it. A third vote will be, in effect, to fund and appropriate the money that would be so offset or spend it by borrowing it if it is not offset. I would just share with my colleagues one particular thing. The Presiding Officer, Senator Whitehouse, is on the Budget Committee, and our staff has looked at these budget numbers. I would just advise my colleagues--I believe they should vote to offset the additional expenditure. This is the reason: The Budget Control Act enacted this summer was part of an effort where Republicans said: We will raise the debt limit, but we want you to cut spending. We need to cut back on spending because we have had a series of deficits the likes of which the Nation has never seen before. We have to do better. We need to reduce spending. Our Democratic colleagues resisted. So when it was finally done, it was a $900 billion-plus reduction in spending, which was to occur over 10 years. Plus, the committee of 12 was supposed to find $1.2 trillion more if they could. If they could not, there would be an automatic cut of that. So it would be about a $2.1 trillion savings over 10 years. Experts have told us we need at least $4 trillion in savings over 10 years, not $2 trillion. But it was a step in the right direction, and that was the best that could be done under the circumstances. So the bill was passed. What I want to say is that under that legislation, it was discovered that this year--the current fiscal year, that began October 1--we were going to spend $1.43 trillion instead of the $1.5 trillion we spent last year. So there was a lot of heartburn and complaining. We are only cutting $7 billion out of the discretionary portion of our budget, not Social Security and Medicare, but other programs that are going up every year: food stamps, college loans, Pell grants. So we were going to cut at least the discretionary accounts by $7 billion, from $1.50 trillion to 1.43 billion. But I have to say, we are not going to achieve that. Just as has so often been the case, we promise reductions in spending but do not get there. You would think that we could find $7 billion. You would think that is not too much to ask this government, that has been increasing spending at a substantial rate, to reduce spending a little bit. In fact, in the first 2 years of President Obama's administration, nondefense discretionary spending went up 24 percent, a dramatic increase. So to reduce spending and try to get this huge deficit under control is not too much to ask, in my opinion. Indeed, we are borrowing 40 percent of every dollar we spend. This year we will spend about $3.6 trillion and take in about $2.2 trillion or $2.3 trillion. That is just not any way to do business. This will be the third straight year that has happened. So we were looking for some improvement. I would just say to my colleagues, this is one little offset, $8 billion in additional spending, and it will determine whether we have any reduction in spending or whether, in fact, contrary to our promises this summer, we will spend more this year than last year. These are the numbers as we have calculated them from the Budget Committee staff. The regular appropriations would be this year $1.43 trillion, but they have added to it disaster and other spending of $11 billion, which would mean we would be spending $1.54 trillion, more than the $1.50 trillion we spent last year. We would be spending more, not less. The House has sent over a bill that would offset $9 billion of that, which would bring the total spending this year to $1.45 trillion. That would reduce our spending this year by $5 billion, not as much as we promised in the Budget Act but at least a modest reduction. It is a very important vote. It is a symbolic vote. It says: Are we honest with the American people when we go before them with a bill that says we are going to spend less than we spent last year, even if it was a small amount? We cannot even achieve that. Perhaps that is why people are unhappy with us. We have been promising them that we would do something about the debt situation in this country. But we have not done much. As a matter of fact, we have done almost nothing. So I would just urge my colleagues to think about that as they cast their votes on this portion of the House legislation, which has not been discussed much among our colleagues, and not particularly well- understood. But I do think it is important. I think it is an important, symbolic vote. Are we willing to do that? It would amount to about a 1.86-percent, less than 2 percent across-the-board rescission to offset spending on the other spending items, exempting defense and some other items. Defense, of course, has taken dramatic cuts already. They are working on very dramatic cuts, and as a result of the failure of the committee of 12, they will take a huge cut. The Defense Department has taken, on a percentage basis and a real dollar basis, far more in reductions than any other department. Of course this is not for war spending. War is in a separate overseas contingency account. This is the base defense budget that is taking the cuts. I wanted to share that with my colleagues. I also appreciated Senator Hoeven's presentation on the Keystone Pipeline. And I truly believe, and agree with my friend from Vermont, that unemployment is a tremendous problem for us. What I don't agree with is that it can be fixed by borrowing and spending and taxing. That is what we have seen lately. I suggest that one way to deal with unemployment is to not spend any government money, get the government bureaucrats busy, examine this pipeline. We have pipelines crossing all over this country. If we bring those under control, approve this pipeline, it will add 20,000 real jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs and make this country more safe and secure from foreign energy exploitation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate and share the comments made by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina. I believe it is important. Having come here 15 years ago and having confronted the question of depots and how they operate, I was surprised to learn the intensity of the feelings and the difficulty of the issue. We worked on it for some time, and for the most part, it has been quiet under Senator Levin and Senator Warner. We kind of worked out how this thing should be handled. I thought things were rocking along well and have been very disappointed that the House Members have taken an initiative at a point where we were told it was too late to make any changes in the process. That alters that understanding, and I am not comfortable with it. I feel I have engaged in these issues. We have a depot in my State, and we should have given it better consideration. I do not believe it is correct, the language as it is. I do believe we need to make changes. So it is a concern that the delicate balance created by the current definition of ``core depot-level maintenance'' between government facilities and industry could be altered and at risk. We have all worked on this issue for a number of years. We have a more efficient and productive model today than we had when I first came here because of a lot of hard work and intense effort. So that is a problem for me. Another troubling element of this new definition is the potential treatment of commercial items. The notion that perhaps an engine or other major assembly of a major end item such as a tank or aircraft could be considered a commercial item and not part of our depot core mission is very problematic and would be contrary to the way we have been operating for many years. I would like to point out that because of the hasty way this language came into the bill, we do not know the second- and third-level effects of this language. That in itself is another reason to make sure we get the policy right in a very deliberative and collaborative process. I hope we have a solution that will work. I say to Chairman Levin and Senator McCain, the ranking member, I appreciate your willingness to work to correct the error in the process--and I believe there was a process error--and to ensure that due diligence is done as we work to codify the definition of ``core depot-level maintenance.'' So I look forward to your leadership in conducting subcommittee hearings, full committee hearings, working sessions, and whatever it takes to make sure we get the language right before we get to the markup and consideration of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. I will conclude by saying we had some very important issues to deal with in the Defense bill. A lot of them were very difficult. Under Chairman Levin's leadership and Senator McCain, we either reached an agreement or reached an agreement not to agree, and moved the bill forward. I think it is over 50 years now that this bill has moved forward every year. I think it is something to be proud of. The only real controversy that came out of it is this depot matter. So it sort of went against the way we felt we should operate, the way that has resulted in settlements of disputed issues and moving the bill forward. For that reason, I think it is appropriate we ask that this issue be redealt with next year. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I wish to praise an exceptional man, COL William M. Voigt. Colonel Voigt has been one of the foremost civil and military leaders in Birmingham and in my State of Alabama for around a half century now. I was proud to join Colonel Voigt recently in Birmingham when he accepted his well-deserved award as the 2011 National Veteran of the Year. I have had the pleasure to know Bill personally for many years and to observe his devotion to his country. His patriotism is unsurpassed. Colonel Voigt served his country with 30 years in the Alabama Air National Guard and another 5 years of service with the U.S. Air Force Reserve. He has achieved not only a bachelor of science in business administration from Auburn University and a master's in business administration from the University of Alabama in Birmingham but has also graduated from the Air War College, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, the Air Command and Staff College, and the Squadron Officer School. In addition to his own education, COL Bill Voigt has given his time and efforts to an impressive and exhaustive list of nonprofits and service organizations. On top of this, he has served for over 20 years as the president of the National Veterans Day organization. Birmingham is the birthplace of Veterans Day. The very first Veterans Day celebration was held in Birmingham by this very organization in 1947. It was only in 1954, 7 years later, that Congress agreed to the value of this wonderful event and made Veterans Day the national holiday it is today. The Birmingham National Veterans Day celebration is believed to be not only the oldest but also the largest in the country. The day includes a parade and a large awards dinner. The entire effort is a monumental planning exercise. For 20 years Bill Voigt made it happen. This year's dinner was a very special one. The organization's president, James A. Holt, Congressman Spencer Bachus, Congresswoman Terri Sewell, and others took part in the excellent program. I was honored to be a part of the program also. The superb keynote speaker was RADM Tom Steffens (retired), a U.S. Navy SEAL for 34 years. It was a special program indeed, but the remarks all revolved around Colonel Voigt. I know he and his wonderful family were most proud. Colonel Voigt represents the model for the type of person we should push our youth to emulate. He is a man who has proven time and time again that he is willing to serve his country, his community, and his fellow veterans who have fought for the ideals and goals of the United States of America. Mr. President, it is my honor to pay tribute to this great man and by extension this wonderful annual Veterans Day event.

Mr. SESSIONS

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