Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Utah. I am just a bit taken aback by the majority leader's decision to alter the course that I thought we were on that would allow for debate and work on a bill to deal with the budget, the debt ceiling, and our budget deficit tomorrow. In some of his comments he made today after he changed his mind yesterday, he said: I'm committed to allowing a fair and full debate on this bill. I want the proponents and opponents to have time to air their views. And so forth. Then he says: I think this piece of legislation is about as weak and senseless as anything that has ever come before the Senate. I am not going to waste the Senate's time day after day on this piece of legislation which I think is an anathema to what our country is about. And he goes on to say: The American people should understand this is a bad piece of legislation, perhaps the worst legislation in the history of this country. That is what the majority leader said just a few hours ago. Well, let me ask Senator Lee--he is newly elected from the State of Utah. He has traveled all over the State. Did the Senator share with his people at various times in his efforts that he thought a constitutional amendment, like so many States have to contain spending, is good and sound policy? Did they hold that against the Senator or does he think his election was an affirmation of the cry of the American people that we take some action that would actually constrain spending?

Mr. SESSIONS. I am flabbergasted by the majority leader's comments. He said: I think this piece of legislation is about as weak and senseless as anything that has ever come up on the Senate floor. Well, wouldn't the Senator say that compared to all the other legislation we are talking about passing--and some of it has some teeth to it, I acknowledge--but compared to all of that, a constitutional amendment that requires us to live within our means is certainly not a weak piece of legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I think that is getting to the nub of the matter. I think it is a sense in which--now for a constitutional amendment to pass, it has to have a two-thirds vote in the Congress, both Houses, and three-fourths of the States. Once passed, no majority leader could come in next year and say: Well, I know I have been in favor of balanced budgets, but I don't want to do it this year. I have more spending I want to occur. It would, indeed, curb the power of the majority leader and actually some newly constituted Senate to spend more money than the government takes in, would it not?

Mr. SESSIONS. I couldn't agree more. I think the American people rightly have concluded that our Congress of the United States that borrows 40 percent of the amount of money it spends--because it is spending more money than it takes in--is acting irresponsibly. As I have noted earlier, somebody said: Oh, you know, the tea party is angry. Well, why shouldn't they be angry? We have completely mismanaged the American people's business. We are elected to be responsible leaders. Nobody, I believe, would come to the floor of this Senate--I would like to see if it happens--and defend what we are doing, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend no matter what it is on. And the President proposed his budget for next year that would include a 10-percent increase for education, 10-percent increase for energy, 10-percent increase for the State Department, and we are spending money that we don't have. So I think a constitutional amendment would require a major participation by the American people and all the States of America would discuss it. If the American people decide they believe Congress needs to be restrained and pass that constitutional amendment, what is wrong with that? Isn't that a legitimate way for the American people to have their voices expressed according to the Constitution?

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I agree with that, and it is just odd to me--and contrary to the heritage of the Senate--for the majority leader to assume as much power as is being assumed now. I am ranking member on the Budget Committee, and essentially the Democratic leadership told the Budget Committee not to even mark up a budget this year even though the statutes of the United States in the United States Code require Congress to have a budget. I know the Senator is a skilled lawyer. His father was Solicitor General of the United States. It is probably the most prestigious position a lawyer can have in America, in my opinion. To be able to stand before the U.S. Supreme Court and to represent the U.S. Government in court is an honor that is very high. So he is a student of the law, and I know he is familiar with the statutes of the United States that require a budget. It doesn't say you go to jail if you don't, I will admit, but it says we should have a budget. Does the Senator think the people in Utah--and I think the people in Alabama--would think we should have a budget because it is the right thing to do, No. 1, and, No. 2, we should do it because it is the law?

Mr. SESSIONS. The House of Representatives passed this bill. They passed it by more than a few votes to spare and sent it here. I believe if the American people knew what was in it, they would favor it. The people in my State would favor it. I think the American people would favor it. How does the Senator think the good people in the House, the good people of America, who overwhelmingly favor a restraint in spending and balancing our budget, would feel about the leader curtailing our debate on this important subject and saying: I think this piece of legislation is about as weak and senseless as anything that has ever come on this Senate floor. I'm not going to waste the Senate's time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I have to say I think we are having a problem in the Senate. I consider the majority leader a friend. I know it is a very difficult job. I have said that many times. I wouldn't want it. Trent Lott said it is like herding cats or it is like pushing a wheelbarrow with frogs; you put one in and two jump out. It is a tough job, but he asked for it. The Senate is a great institution. I don't know what Robert Byrd, the late Senator from West Virginia, would say if he were here. I think I know. I think he would be very uneasy about the process we have gone through this year when, through the power of the Chair, the majority leader has blocked legislation after legislation, has blocked us moving forward with a budget, refusing to allow the committees to move forward, and refused to allow the budget even to come up last year. We are now I think 812 days without a budget in the Senate, running the largest deficits the Nation has ever run, and those deficits are not transient. They are not going to turn around when the economy picks up a little bit. It is a systemic, deep, structural problem, and we are endangering our future. We are being blocked from even being able to discuss it while people meet in secret over at the White House with the Vice President, with the President, and a few others meet with a group of Senators. Nobody elected them, but they are good people. If they want to meet, that is fine. We need to be seeing legislation, actual bills we can take to committee and score and see how much they cost. Being the student of American law and the Constitution as the Senator from Utah is, and being knowledgeable about common people, does the Senator think the American people think there is something wrong with this process, where we have gone all year long and not done anything of significance to deal with the most significant issue facing our Nation maybe in the next decade, and that is the size of our debt?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think what the Senator has said is sadly too truthful. I do believe this is a corruption of the process. I believe it has been happening over a period of time since I have been here. I have seen it happen more and more. Both parties have done a lot of this, but I do believe it has reached a new height this year. I think Senator Reid believes in the Senate. I think he respects the Senate. I do. But I think he is under constant pressure, and they have decided that--some of his Members, I guess, didn't want to stay here this weekend. They wanted to go home. They had a speech they wanted to give or a party they wanted to attend or a fundraising event they wanted to go to, so they don't want to stay here this weekend. Just yesterday, I think it was, Senator Reid was complaining about the House going home this weekend, and promising we would stay here and we would work. Now, all of a sudden, anybody who stays here and wants to vote on a bill that passed by a substantial majority in the House of Representatives, he says is acting--he says the bill is anathema to the Senate, and senseless, and not worth our time to talk about. How does he get to decide this?

Mr. SESSIONS. It is an important issue, I think. I really do. I wish to make this point: There is only one bill that has passed and been advocated, that is actually on the floor of the Senate, that raises the debt ceiling and changes our debt course in America, and that is the bill the Senator from Utah has brought up--the cut, cap, and balance bill--the bill he has been so articulately describing and advocating. That is the only bill. They say this is senseless. Well, do you have anything that raises the debt ceiling and does something about the debt of America? Does anybody else in the Senate? Or, if they bring it up, will they be blocked from bringing it up? I don't see it. The only legislation is this legislation. It is not senseless. It is very significant. When I came to the Senate the first year in 1997, we voted on an amendment to balance the budget, a constitutional amendment. We thought the votes were there to pass it, taking all the people who voted for it and when they said they were going to vote, there were enough votes to pass it, it appeared, and at the last moment several Senators changed their vote and it only got 66 votes. Had it had 67, it would have gone to the States. I am convinced that balanced budget amendment would have passed. Had it passed, we wouldn't be in the financial crisis we are in today. Now that is a fact, I believe. I don't think this is a senseless process. I believe people--if they don't agree with this legislation, if they don't agree with it, let's hear why. But to come down and trash it--trash the Members of the House who voted for it, trash the American people----

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and ask unanimous consent to have 1 additional minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. To inquire, was there a time limit on this?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Presiding Officer for his courtesy. I would say, forgive me if I am a little bit offended. I don't think it is wrong to be offended when the majority leader walks in here and says a piece of legislation that is critical, I believe, to the future of America is senseless, not worth discussing. He changes his mind entirely and is going to file a motion. I guess he figures he will have the majority Members of his party who will stick with him and kill off the legislation tomorrow morning. I think it is a very valid piece of legislation, an important piece of legislation, and the only piece of legislation in the Senate that would raise the debt ceiling. I think it is worthy of respect, it is worthy of full debate, and ought not to be demeaned in the way it has. I respect my friend, the majority leader. I am sure it is a frustrating job and every now and then you kind of say things maybe you wish you hadn't, but I don't think this is a senseless piece of legislation. I think it is important and worthy of the greatest consideration in the Senate. I thank Senator Lee for his efforts to promote it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, we use this turn of phrase all the time, but I am afraid it is worth discussing how politicians use it.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is a stunning thing. You can talk about raising taxes on American workers, on families, on small businesses and on the wealthy and investors all you want, but this talk is easy. It ignores the root causes of the deficit and debt problem here in Washington: out-of- control spending. It may sound like a cliche to the American people that Republicans are always talking about out-of-control spending. We wish it were a joke, but sadly, it is true.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, many of our good colleagues like to suggest our Nation has historic deficits because the American people are not taxed enough. Some claim the so-called Bush tax cuts are the culprit, but the numbers tell a different story. In fact, these tax cuts were fully implemented in 2003. Annual revenues have increased steadily from $1.782 trillion to $2.524 trillion in 2008, and they increase every year, for an increase of more than 40 percent. That is double the rate of inflation after the tax cuts took effect. In fact, since the recession of 2008 and the weakest economic recovery in modern history, revenue has now declined. That makes sense. With high unemployment there are fewer taxpayers and, naturally, revenue declines. Going forward, however, the CBO projects revenue as a share of the GDP will rise to 18.4 percentage points of GDP by 2021. That is assuming extension, not elimination, of the 2001 and 2003 tax reductions. Revenue is therefore projected to return to its historic 18.4 percent average. It would seem, then, that the American people are already taxed enough to finance a government whose spending has grown wildly out of control. The real problem is, while revenue will return to its historic average, if nothing is done to slow spending, annual outlays will increase from $3.7 trillion today to $5.7 trillion by 2021, for an increase of more than 50 percent. As a share of GDP, spending will remain, on average, above 23 percent of GDP. That is nearly 3 percentage points above the historic average.

Mr. SESSIONS. Our friends on the other side of the aisle are almost exclusively focused on hitting up the taxpayer for more revenue.

Mr. SESSIONS. How many days of debt reduction over that 10-year period would a $3 billion savings or increase in taxes amount to?

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, let me say I appreciate the work of the ranking member of the Finance Committee, a long-time member of that committee. It seems to me pretty clear that the President's budget he submitted earlier this year--which I have to say was voted down 97 to 0 in the Senate--would have increased the deficit over 10 years by $13 trillion. He has also suggested his plan to increase taxes on corporate jets by $3 billion would somehow make a difference in that. I think Senator Hatch is right, that is not accurate. How about other proposals we hear from the Democratic side, such as cutting back mortgage interest deduction for yachts used for second homes?

Mr. SESSIONS. It is shocking to see how small those numbers are, and we aren't hearing that in the press and in the national discussions. From the talk we have heard about these proposals, you would think they would yield more than 2 days of debt reduction over 10 years.

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, with $13 trillion--that is 13 thousand billion-- $21 billion won't amount to much.

Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator has served on the Finance Committee for a number of years and is now the senior ranking Republican there. If you listen to our friends on the other side of the aisle, it would appear that all fiscal problems could be resolved by taxing millionaires. Is that an argument that the Senator is familiar with?

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, not many, is my answer to that. But as often as the President talks about taxing the rich or spreading the wealth around as a cure for our fiscal problems, you would think it would balance the budget. But would he get us there?

Mr. SESSIONS. Going back to the other chart on taxation and spending under the Obama budget, I would note President Obama's budget raised taxes significantly, increased spending even more, and as a result, over 10 years, created more debt projected than if he had made no budget at all.

Mr. SESSIONS. Let's take another look at the definition of red herring on the chart. It says: The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a ``red herring'' argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. Our friends on the other side, using White House talking points, sophisticatedly prepared, appear to have resorted to red herrings with their deficit reduction proposals. They want the American people to think a few easy tax increases on the rich or yacht owners or corporate jet users or oil companies--the people behind the tree--can solve our debt crisis without spending reforms. They hope these red herrings will hide a serious Democratic vulnerability. If they are not going to address spending in a serious way, then massive tax increases on the middle class will be a necessity. These red herrings are designed to throw those citizens who care deeply about reducing the $13 trillion debt that the President's budget will incur off the trail. The trail of deficit reduction leads to one of two places: restraining out-of-control spending; or crushing tax relief increases on middle-class families. Restraining spending is not a red herring. It cuts to the heart of our fiscal problems. It goes to the root of the problem. The President and his allies need to come clean with the American people. The President so far has refused to present a deficit reduction plan in these negotiations that are going on. He says he has one, but we never see it so it can be scored and analyzed. The White House seems content to produce cheap talking points justifying these red herrings, rather than meaningfully addressing our debt crisis. As I have said before, and will again, this shows a disrespect for the American people. Our people deserve better. They need honest, fair analyses of the problems we face. I expect they will reward those who talk straight with them and offer serious grown-up efforts to reduce our debt with their support; and I think they will be unhappy once it is realized how little these proposals would impact the huge debt crisis we are now facing.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hatch and I be allowed to participate in a colloquy.