Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Seven years ago. He continued to practice even while in the Senate until the bureaucrats made it impossible, I guess, to do so. So the Senator from Oklahoma comes here with practical experience, a brilliant mind, and a committed vision for America. I appreciate the Senator sharing his frustration about what has occurred this week. This is a quote that was in the Wall Street Journal by Democratic Senate strategists about this scheme and plan that was offered in four votes yesterday--votes the majority had conceived in such a way that they were guaranteed to fail and nothing was going to happen. It was a guaranteed plan to ensure nothing would happen. This is what the journal said about it: As a political matter, Democratic strategists say there may be little benefit in producing a budget that would inevitably include unpopular items. The Senator is famous for telling the truth. If he would, I would like him to respond to that. What does that say about our Senate, that the Democrats say there would be little political benefit in producing a budget that might include unpopular items? Doesn't a tough budget that gets us on the right path have to have some things in it that some people might not like?

Mr. SESSIONS. Let me ask the Senator. The Senator just won an overwhelming reelection. There is not a Senator here, I don't think anybody would dispute, who has been more frank in expressing the need that all of us are going to have to rein in our spending and who shared that directly with his constituents. When they have asked for things, the Senator from Oklahoma has tried to help them, I know, but he is frank with his constituents. Would the Senator share with us what kind of percentage he got in the last election?

Mr. SESSIONS. Seventy-one percent. Does my colleague think perhaps that some of us here in Washington are overly afraid of being frank and truthful with our constituents about the challenges America faces?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Senator has served on the debt commission. I know there has been a concerted effort to blame and exaggerate and distort the House budget, particularly as it refers to Medicare. Again, quoting Democratic Senate strategists, this is what the Wall Street Journal said: Many Democrats believe a recent House GOP proposal to overhaul Medicare is proving to be unpopular and has given Democrats a political advantage. They are loath to give that up by proposing higher taxes. Which they would prefer as a solution. Senate Democrats plan to hold a vote on the Ryan plan . . . Which they did yesterday-- . . . hoping to force GOP Senators to cast a vote on the Medicare overhaul that could prove politically difficult. I say to Senator Coburn, you served on the debt commission. This is what your commission chairman said in a written statement after Paul Ryan and the House Republicans produced their budget: The budget released this morning by the House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is a serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our nation's enormous fiscal challenges. We applaud him for his work in putting forward a proposal which will reduce the country's deficit by approximately the same amount as the plan of the President's Fiscal Commission. They also went on to say that if you criticize it, you have a responsibility to offer an alternative. I say to the Senator, you served with Mr. Bowles. He was a Democratic Chief of Staff to President Clinton and was appointed by President Obama to chair this commission. That does not sound like the things we heard yesterday, attacking the House Ryan budget, does it?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Coburn for his leadership. I have watched him with admiration over the years with consistency and fidelity for the national interest to work to bring our spending under control. I see our colleague, Senator Alexander, in the Chamber, and I will yield the floor. I will just follow up, before I do that, with a quote from Erskine Bowles. When the President announced his budget not long after the deficit commission he called together had made some pretty good proposals about how to improve fiscal matters in the United States, Mr. Bowles was, obviously, deeply disappointed with what the President submitted and said this plan goes ``nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our [country's] fiscal nightmare.'' I think there is a consensus that we are facing a fiscal nightmare. We are going to have to take some serious steps in that regard. Mr. President, I think there are some other Members who have reserved time. If there are no other Members here who have reserved time after Senator Alexander completes his remarks, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at that time.

Mr. SESSIONS. As I said, my consent would be that if anyone has reserved time, they would get it before I will speak.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the fine remarks of my friend from Missouri. Seeing the damage that was done by the tornadoes in Alabama, they have far exceeded anything I have seen before. I appreciate more than most the damage and difficulties the people of Missouri are going through. I know there will be emergency funding for that. There is a legitimate question as to whether we ought to not find that emergency spending someplace in our budget where it can be recovered that is not so important. But I know we will process that as we go forward. Unsustainable Budget Path I truly believe our Nation is facing an economic crisis, but it's not so much what I believe but what every expert we have heard from believes and has testified to. Mr. Erskine Bowles, who cochaired the debt commission, who was appointed by President Obama, said, along with Senator Alan Simpson, his cochair, in a written statement to the Budget Committee, that this Nation has never faced such a predictable economic crisis. In other words, the deficit levels we are operating with are so high and they create such danger to the economy that we have to get off this path. Every expert has said we are on an unsustainable path. Many people have thought the problem we are dealing with today places a burden on our children and our grandchildren; therefore, it has removed to some degree the immediacy of the problem. But that is not what Mr. Bowles said. In his testimony before the Budget Committee just a month or two ago, he said that we could have a financial crisis. When asked by the chairman when, he said 2 years, maybe less, maybe more. Senator Simpson said it could be 1 year. We are taking a risk with the American economy. This has been echoed by Moody's bond ratings, and it has been echoed by S&P, which warned that our debt rating for our government debt could be downgraded. Alan Greenspan has made similar comments. Alice Rivlin, former OMB Director under President Clinton, made those comments. Pete Domenici, who cochaired a debt commission with Alice Rivlin, former chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate, said to us with real passion: I have never been so afraid for my country. That is what Pete Domenici said. We know we have to take action, and now we are heading today to 756 days since the Senate has passed a budget. We have not passed a budget. I say with confidence that in terms of a real, long-term threat to the American future, this Nation has never had a greater danger financially and in terms of debt because the problems we face are more severe than even in the nineties when we turned our business around and in 3 years balanced the budget. It is going to be harder to do it now. We went through World War II. We borrowed money. But we had a vibrant, growing economy and growing population, and we promptly moved our way through that, and growth took care of us. But we cannot expect that the level of growth that according to the experts we can reasonably predict will be sufficient to get our house in order. When you do not have enough money and the course you are on is unsustainable, you need to develop a plan that puts you on a sustainable path. How simple is that? That is grownup talk. How do you do it? What is our mechanism in the Congress? This is a budget. This is title II, section 271 through et seq, and it has the Budget Act. We passed a Budget Act. It is law. Clever Congress did not put any penalties on it, so we can violate it and not go to jail. We do not have to personally pay fines. But it represented a serious commitment by a previous Congress that we needed a budget. They also made as part of that budget law that it could be passed with a simple majority so it could not be filibustered. That was one of the reasons budgets sometimes failed to be passed. At a time when they were thinking about the future, they said: Let's make the budget passable by a simple majority. It also has a timeline in it. It says the Congress must pass a budget by April 15. We are long past that date--long past it. Are we going on to a third year now without a budget? Mr. President, 1,000 days without a budget while our country is on a debt path unsustainable to a degree that threatens the future of America economically--yes, that is where we are heading. People say: Surely, Jeff, that is not so. Surely there is some plan. There is not any plan--not a plan to pass a budget. What there is a plan to do is not pass a budget. It is irresponsible. It is unwise. It is dangerous for our future because we are on a certain path, a predictable path, as the debt commission told us, to financial ruin. Our debt-to-GDP ratio will reach 100 percent by September 30 of this year. That is above the level that economic experts tell us puts our country at risk. Indeed, when we passed a 90 percent debt-to-GDP ratio, economists Rhinehardt and Rogoff, who completed a massive study of national defaults of economies around the world by sovereign states, warned that at that level you reduce the growth in the economy by at least 1 percent of GDP. The average was higher than that. They said on a median level, it is 1 percent of GDP, and they used that number--1 percent growth that we don't get. Well, some think we may not get 2 percent growth this year. Would we have gotten 3? If we get 1, would we have gotten 2? One percent growth in GDP is a large thing in an economy the size of ours. It increases tax revenue significantly. It increases jobs. According to experts, 1 percent of GDP growth means 1 million more jobs. A decline of 1 percent in our economy represents a loss of 1 million jobs. This is not a little-bitty matter. On Monday, I objected. I realized what is going on in the Senate, that there is no plan to deal with this situation, that there is a gimmicked-up scheme to bring up a series of budget votes that the majority leader knows will not pass. Indeed, he intends to bring up a vote on a budget that he and all his colleagues intend to vote against--the most responsible one out there, the House budget, passed by the Republican House. That is what they want to bring up for a vote and vote against. But the Budget Act does not say bring up a House budget. It says each House--the Senate and the House--should bring up its own budget and pass it on the floor. It should go to committee. None of the budgets we will be voting on have gone through committee. We have had no markups in committee. We never even had a markup on the budget. Why? What is this? What is going on? Let me share with my colleagues why we are not having a legitimate process to produce a budget at the most critical financial time in our history. It is about politics. Does that surprise anyone? This is what Democratic staffers were quoted as saying in a Wall Street Journal article a few days ago. What did they say about it? Did they say: We have a plan to solve America's future. Did they say: We have a plan to reduce our debt and get us on a sound path. Did they say: We understand the future of the country is endangered by unsustainable debt growth. No, they did not say that. This is what they said: As a political matter, Senate Democratic strategists say there may be little benefit in producing a budget that would inevitably include unpopular items. They do not want to produce an honest budget, a budget that would make a difference, because it would have some unpopular items in it. I ask, is that responsible leadership? I suggest it is not. It goes on: Many Democrats believe a recent House GOP proposal to overhaul Medicare is proving to be unpopular and has given Democrats a political advantage. They are loath to give that up by proposing higher taxes . . . What does that mean? It means their budget, if they produce one, would call for higher taxes, and they do not want to do it. They do not want to propose a budget that reduces spending. They do not want to produce a budget that has higher taxes. Why? Because they are playing politics rather than serving a national interest. That is just plain as day. I wish it were not so, but there is no other explanation for why this Senate preparing to go into recess Friday for Memorial Day without having even commenced hearings on a budget. This is what they decided to do. I am quoting from the article: Senate Democrats plan to hold a vote on the Ryan plan-- The House budget-- hoping to force GOP senators to cast a vote on the Medicare overhaul that could prove politically difficult. Give me a break. Is that what it is all about? Is that what we are here for? It is not what many of my Democratic colleagues tell me. They tell me they know we are on an unsustainable path and we have to do something. But why are we going through this charade, to bring up one, two, three budgets and vote them all down and then say: Well, we tried. Maybe we will have some secret talks over here and we will plop something down right before some emergency date and demand everybody vote for it, not having a chance to read it. Is that what the process is going to be instead of an open process where the Budget Committee has open hearings, amendments are offered, a budget is voted out of committee, it comes to the floor, and there is a guaranteed 50 hours of debate? But the process comes to an end. The Budget Act states that we cannot filibuster it. There is only limited time of debate, but there is an opportunity to debate, an opportunity to offer amendments. We are told Senator Reid does not want his members to have to take tough votes. None of us like to take tough votes. None of us likes to take tough votes. Isn't that what we are paid for here? Isn't that why they send us--to vote on important, tough issues that impact the future of our Nation? I am telling you, we are so far off path it is stunning to me. I quoted his staffer earlier, but what about Senator Reid himself, the Democratic leader of the Senate? Anybody who has worked with Senator Reid likes him, and I enjoy working with him. I respect him. I know he has a difficult job, but at some point one has to stand and lead. He is not leading and neither is President Obama. But this is what Senator Reid said just a few days ago--I think Friday. There is no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion. Well, there is a need, a statutory legal requirement that we send a budget out of the Senate. Then, he said: It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage. Why does he say it would be foolish? I think my good friend, Senator Reid, has taken his eye off the national interest. He has taken his eye off the crisis our country faces, and he has his eye on politics. He means it would be foolish politically. He has a scheme, and this is what his scheme is. He is going to bring up the House budget--the Ryan plan. In all honesty, it is the only plan I have seen in my time in the Senate that comes close to providing a long-term alteration of the unsustainable fiscal path we are on. It deals with it. It makes some tough choices, but they are not unbearable and I think most of them will actually work. It is not perfect. I don't promise that I would vote for everything in it. But it is a historic plan to put America on a sustainable financial course. I thought they could have reduced spending more in some areas, frankly. But it puts us on a sustainable course. It was produced by the House Budget Committee. They had public hearings, the committee voted on it, they brought it to the floor, and it passed in the House of Representatives, in the way the Congress of the United States is supposed to operate. What does our leader in the Senate and his colleagues who support him do? They make a decision to do something political, not responsible. They are not putting forth the vision they have for the future, but they are going to bring up the Ryan budget so they can all vote against it. I don't think that is responsible. I don't think it is responsible at all. I am not going to participate in this scheme to have a series of votes. Count me out. I am not supporting it. I am not going to give my consent to it. That is the way I see it and I don't think that it makes sense. If I did, I would change my mind. But as I see it, it makes no sense for me to, in any way, consent to a process that is designed to fail. The whole process is designed to fail. With a simple majority in the Senate, our Democratic colleagues can pass any piece of legislation. They have 53 Members. They can win the vote. If they put up a good budget, they might have some Republicans--maybe all the Republicans, if we reached a bipartisan agreement. But there is nothing close to that. We have not approached this in any realistic way, and I am concerned that we are off track. Senator Schumer, who once headed the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee--he designed all that--is a Senator who is considered to be a guru of politics around here. He is good, and there is nothing wrong with being a smart politician. But at some point politics goes too far. This is what he said on May 23 regarding the Ryan budget. We will exhibit this issue as an example of why we need to keep the Senate Democratic in order to counter House Republicans. We will point to this week and say the Republicans tried to end Medicare but a Democratic majority stopped it in the Senate. It is that simple. That is an open statement of raw politics. Where is the national interest? Where is the response to Mr. Bowles, a leading Democrat, to Alice Rivlin, a leading Democrat, and their principled cries that we do something about the debt crisis we now find ourselves in? Nowhere. My colleagues want to go home, and they intend to go home--go home Friday. Our soldiers are out there, and they are not getting to come home from Iraq and Afghanistan. They are going down roads where bombs might be planted and they are putting their lives at risk. They do not get to come home. Their business isn't finished yet. But we plan to go home, apparently, not having done anything but having gone through a political exercise that is an embarrassment to the Senate at a critical time in our Nation's financial history--a very critical time. President Obama utterly ignored, in his completely irresponsible budget, the fiscal commission that he himself created to seek a national consensus on funding. I have to say the President's budget is nowhere close to what is necessary to avoid our fiscal nightmare. That is not a Jeff Sessions quote. That is a quote from Erskine Bowles, who cochaired the Commission, when he saw the President's budget plan that was submitted a couple months ago. He said it is nowhere close to where the Administration will have to go to avoid our Nation's fiscal nightmare. So that is what the President has done, and the Senate has done nothing. They will not even hold a markup and propose a plan. Why? They think it is politically unwise. They think they can gain more politically by refusing to produce a budget, by attacking the House Members who produced a budget--as they are required to by law--that is honest and would make a huge long-term difference in America. It would put us on a sustainable path, not leave us on an unsustainable path. I will conclude with a quote from the preamble to the fiscal commission's debt report. This is what they wrote to us. Remember now, Senator Reid's plan is to bring up the House budget and have all his Members vote it down so they can attack Republicans for having the audacity to propose any changes in Medicare--and not even in the 10 years of the budget. It is the outyears they are complaining about, and it is not law. Any change will not become law until it passes both Houses of Congress. But it is a vision that could work to make Medicare sound and actually save it. They think they can scare people by saying we are going to end Medicare, so they are going to vote on it. That vote, in the minds of our Democratic politicians, shows that they are defending Medicare and that all the Republicans oppose Medicare. But the American people are getting too smart for that. I don't believe they are going to buy that story any longer. They know Medicare is on an unsustainable path and that it cannot continue. The Medicare actuaries and trustees have reported today that it is going to go bankrupt a number of years sooner than was originally expected. But this is what the debt commission said about the need to have a plan to fix our future: In the weeks and months to come, countless advocacy groups and special interests will try mightily through expensive, dramatic, and heart-wrenching media assaults to exempt themselves from the shared sacrifice and common purpose. The national interest, not the special interests, must prevail. We urge leaders and citizens with principled concerns about any of our recommendations to follow what we call the Becerra Rule: Don't shoot down an idea without offering a better idea in its place. Isn't that a reasonable request--don't shoot down an idea unless you are prepared to present a better one in its place? That is exactly the opposite of what our Democratic leadership is proposing. They are proposing to bring up a budget they say they do not like. They are going to vote it down without producing anything in its place. That is not responsible leadership, it is not respectful of the budget process, which is required by law, and it is not in the national interest. It is not in the national interest. Yes, we are going to have to deal with tough issues. We find ourselves in a fix, a deeper hole than we should ever have been in, and the American people punished Congressmen and Senators last year because they were unhappy, and they were right to be. There is no way any Member of this Congress can stand before their constituents and justify a deficit this year of $1.6 trillion and defend or justify a spending program in which 40 percent of every $1 we spend this year is borrowed. How can that possibly be called sanity? It is insanity. That is why every one of these people is telling us we have to change and why PIMCO, the largest bond company in the world, has said they are not buying any more American debt. They believe we need to get serious and make some serious changes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I will just wrap up by saying that is why I think the process planned for this week is unacceptable and I do not intend to support it. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object and I will object at this time and would like to review that unanimous consent request.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent request propounded by the Senator from Oregon, I will remove my objection. I will not object.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the difficulties the majority leader has and would agree substantively that the PATRIOT Act does need to be passed. It doesn't need to have any gap in it. As a former Federal prosecutor for 15 years, I agree that the Paul amendment to make our terrorist investigators go further and have more difficulty in obtaining gun records than the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms investigators for far more minor crimes is a bad policy. I see where he is coming from, but I don't agree with that. I would say that Senator Paul is a courageous, strong, new Member of the Senate. He has some deep beliefs. He is entitled to advocate for those. I believe he has tried to do that in good faith. He thought he had an agreement to be able to offer his amendment, and the majority leader suggested he could offer amendments, but only the ones he approved, and he won't approve the one on guns. I think that is not healthy, in the defense of Senator Paul, that he would not have an opportunity to offer the amendment he wants to offer, not the one that is approved in advance by the majority leader. I think, to the extent that happens, it diminishes the great robust tradition of debate in the Senate. It is a difficult matter. I know people feel strongly about it. I wanted to share those thoughts. The Budget My good friend Senator Conrad, who chairs the Budget Committee, made his speech. I was disappointed in some of it. He said one thing very dramatic in his statement. We should think about it. He said the Ryan budget is insufficient because it allows $8 trillion in new debt to be incurred by the United States over the next 10 years. Think about that. He says that is unthinkable and it really is dramatic that we would have that much debt accrue. The only budget that exists from the Democratic majority is the President's budget. The President's budget, as analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office, without any doubt or dispute would add $13 trillion to the debt of the United States in 10 years. They conclude that the President's budget--the one that was praised by the Democrats when it came out--would increase the debt, increase spending, and increase taxes more than if we did nothing. I call it the most irresponsible budget ever to be introduced because it makes our debt situation worse at a time in which we have never faced a more serious systemic debt crisis in America. Senator Conrad says Federal education spending, which is basically the Department of Education and some other programs, should not have its funding reduced. He did not acknowledge the fact that the President's budget proposes to increase education spending through the Department of Education by 10.5 percent next year, at a time when we are in record deficits. The Department of Energy is proposed to receive a 9.5-percent increase. The Department of State is proposed to receive a 10.5-percent increase. The Department of Transportation, with a phantom assumption of revenue from a source unidentified by the administration, is projected to receive a 60-percent increase to fund new high-speed rail and other priorities that have not been proven to be effective today. Even if they are effective, we do not have the money. Sometimes you cannot do things you would like to do because you do not have the money. To that extent, I would say we are on the wrong track. Let me say about Congressman Ryan's budget proposal that it does significantly reduce spending every year. It completely changes the debt trajectory. It reduces spending and deficits every year. It does not get to a balance in 10 years, but it eventually gets to a balance in the outyears, according to their projections. Of course, intervening Congresses will have much to say about it. It does change the debt trajectory, and it does put us on the right path. If passed, in my opinion, it would be the kind of budget that would create confidence in the international markets, create jobs and growth in America, create vitality in our businesses, and it is something that would be better than doing nothing and absolutely better than the inexcusable budget that has been presented by the Democrats--the only one they have presented so far. I wanted to make those points. Madam President, the simple fact is that the American people are furious with Washington. And they have every right to be. They work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules. They sacrifice for their families, contribute to their communities, and uphold this Nation's values. They have built up the greatest, most dynamic economy on the face of the Earth. But Washington has wasted their tax dollars, eroded our values, and placed this Nation's economy at grave risk. Politicians have arrogantly believed that the rules don't apply to them. In the midst of a deep recession, as American families tightened their belts, Washington went on a historic spending spree. By the end of the first 3 fiscal years of the Obama administration, we will have accumulated another $5 trillion in total gross debt. Our deficit this year alone will approach $1\1/2\ trillion. Our annual budget has nearly doubled from what it was at the beginning of the decade. This enormous surging debt prompted the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to describe it as the greatest threat to our national security. At $14 trillion it hovers over our economy like a dark cloud. It undermines confidence and fosters uncertainty. Studies show our crushing debt stifles job growth and robs us of as many as one million jobs a year. We borrow $5 billion a day, $100 billion a month and, under the president's vision, we are on track to do the unthinkable: doubling our entire national debt in just 10 years. We are faced with what has rightly been called the most predictable economy crisis in our history. The question is not whether such a crisis will occur but whether we act in time to prevent it. A major financial crisis is not just some hypothetical danger: it is very real and it is very serious. If the world loses confidence in our ability to control our spending and debt, our interest rates could dramatically spike. Greece saw its interest rates triple before its debt crisis hit. The rates for Ireland and Portugal quadrupled. If the same were to happen to the United States we could become unable to pay the interest on our debt and face a Greece-like debt crisis that plunges our country into a deep recession. This would not be some distant financial event, but an economic disaster felt most severely by everyday working Americans. There is no reason we should be in this situation. America's workforce is the most productive on Earth. Our system of government is the envy of the world. But those who occupy the halls of power have failed to uphold the public trust. They have squandered this Nation's wealth and threatened our children's future. So, again, the American people have every right to be furious. They rose up in the last election and the big spenders in Washington took a shellacking. We saw the emergence of the Tea Party a diverse collection of Americans spread across the country who, after years of sitting silent, spoke out for the first time in their lives. They are good and decent patriotic Americans who fear for their country and for the future their children will inherit. Their concerns are shared by the vast majority of Americans. Overall, more than 70 percent of Americans believe this country is on the wrong track. To get back on the right track requires strong leadership. I have continued to hope that President Obama would rally the country behind needed reform. Unfortunately, the president seems determined to not only keep our country on its dangerous course but to accelerate our pace. He offered a budget in February a budget many Democrats praised that he and his budget director declared to the whole world would ``not add more to the debt,'' ``spend only money that we have each year,'' and ``live within our means.'' But those statements were not honest. The President's budget never once produces a deficit less than $748 billion. And the deficits climb to $1.2 trillion in the 10th year. And what about the Senate? What is this august body doing to confront this crisis? Is the Budget Committee meeting to work on a plan? Is there a Senate budget being considered on the floor today? Will we be amending a resolution on the Senate floor? The answer to all of these questions is no. Today is the 756th day since the Democrat-led Senate passed a budget. In that time Congress has spent more than $7 trillion. We have accumulated another $3.2 trillion in debt. What do we have to show for it? Unemployment stuck around 9 percent, anemic economic growth, and the very real threat of a debt crisis. But Majority Leader Reid and the big spenders in the Democrat Party are determined to keep spending and spending and spending. The reason we have not seen a budget from Chairman Conrad and the Democrat Senate is because they know that they can't put forward a plan that wins the support both of their caucus and of the American people. News reports confirmed that budget proposal Senate Democrats were working on and then abandoned relied more heavily on taxes than savings. It would have cut only $1.5 trillion over 10 years. That doesn't even come close to what we need to cut. We are going to spend $45 trillion over the next 10 years. Our national debt will be 100 percent of GDP by the end of September. House Republicans have stepped forward, fulfilled the duty they asked the American people to bestow on them, and presented an honest, courageous plan that will get the job done. It will save, or cut, around $6 trillion. But Leader Reid wants to use our floor time this week to simply vote down this plan while offering nothing in its place. He just wants to keep spending and spending and spending. He is simply trying to remove himself from the spotlight that should be directed on the inability or unwillingness of his caucus to deliver a budget plan to the American people. But the majority leader is more than happy to go into recess, more than 750 days since the Senate has passed a budget, and simply be content to have obstructed every single effort to reduce spending or impose budgetary control. He is content, it would seem, to send this Chamber into recess after he has failed miserably to protect this Nation from the financial danger ahead. He says ``there's no need to have a Democratic budget.'' He says it would be ``foolish'' to present one. So we will just keep spending and spending and spending. What is the real strategy here? The Democrat strategy is just to attack, vilify, and disparage House Republicans because they did the honorable thing and put forward an honest plan. Here is what Senator Schumer said earlier this week, speaking of today's votes: We will exhibit this issue as an example of why we need to keep the Senate Democratic in order to counter House Republicans. We will point to this week and say the Republicans tried to end Medicare but a Democratic majority stopped it in the Senate. It's that simple. Medicare is going to be insolvent in about 10 years. House Republicans have a plan to save it. People may disagree on aspects of that plan, may have different ideas for implementation. But the House Republican plan will save Medicare. The Democrat Senate plan is to allow Medicare to go bust and to waste the Senate's time savaging the House Republican plan with a series of false, dishonest attacks. The Democrat Senate plan is to ignore the danger and just keep spending and spending and spending. Chairman Conrad, I am sad to say, called the House Republican plan ``ideological,'' ``partisan,'' ``unreasonable,'' and ``draconian.'' I was surprised to hear this given that the chairman served on the fiscal commission, which issued the following statement in the preamble to its report: In the weeks and months to come, countless advocacy groups and special interests will try mightily through expensive, dramatic, and heart-wrenching media assaults to exempt themselves from shared sacrifice and common purpose. The national interest, not special interests, must prevail. We urge leaders and citizens with principled concerns about any of our recommendations to follow what we call the Becerra Rule: Don't shoot down an idea without offering a better idea in its place. So after this week's mockery, what is next for the Senate? We will promptly adjourn for recess. The Senate will adjourn for Memorial Day-- a time when we honor those who have kept this country safe. But the Senate has done nothing to protect this country from the economic danger that draws nearer each day. If, after this shameful display, Majority Leader Reid wants to adjourn for recess, all I can say is this: not with my consent. I will force a vote on it. Senate Democrats will have to stand before the American people, having more than 750 days since passing a budget, and declare that they will go into a 1-week vacation having not taken a single, solitary step to address our Nation's fiscal crisis. They have not even allowed the Budget Committee to meet. We are told we don't need public meetings, that a small group of lawmakers and White House officials should meet in secret to hammer out some 11th hour deal that nobody sees or scrutinizes until it is adopted. Well, it is that kind of thinking that got us here in the first place. What this process needs is more sunlight, not less. First, we were told to wait for the Gang of Six. Now we are to supposed to wait for the Biden talks. But at what point will we just do our duty under the law and work on a budget? I firmly believe that the best way out of this debt crisis is to have an open, honest, and public debate. The one thing we haven't tried in this town is the one thing that I know will work: to have an open, transparent process before the whole world. Let's speak honestly about the dangers we face. Let's put forward a plan in the Senate to address those dangers. Let's open that plan to amendment and discussion. Let's stand and be counted before the American people. If Democrats think the way out of this crisis is to raise taxes, let them put that plan on paper and let's debate it. But enough operating in the shadows. Enough hiding. Enough ducking. Let's do the people's work. Let's give the American people the honest process and the honest budget they deserve. We also need a budget that is based on facts. All of the evidence shows that deficit reduction plans relying on heavy tax increases are far less successful and result in far less prosperity. Though raising taxes is billed as the compassionate choice, there is nothing compassionate about weakening our economy and bankrupting our country. There is nothing compassionate about dividing up an ever smaller amount of wealth. There is nothing compassionate about ignoring the facts, the evidence, and the lessons of history. A compassionate budget is one that improves the fortunes for every sector of American society--creating jobs, increasing wages, and expanding opportunity. In other words, we must focus on growing the economy instead of the government. That is the only way to ensure that America is able to compete, to lead and to thrive in the 21st century. An honest budget is one that not only puts our budget on a path to balance but our country on a path to balance. In other words, we need a budget that shifts the balance of power from Washington back to the people. At its core, the debate over our Nation's debt is a debate over our Nation's identity. In his recent speech on the deficit, the president spoke of America's social compact to justify his big-government vision. But the social compact I am familiar with is very different. The American idea is that the government's role is to preserve our liberty, not control our lives. Ultimately, what we are fighting for is a future for our children that is free from both the burden of debt and the burden of big government. I was not elected to this office to participate in the transformation of America to a European-style social democracy where government dominates our lives. America's greatness is not found in the size of our government but in the scope of our freedoms. We need a budget that recognizes this essential truth. I see my colleague Senator Paul is here. I know he would like to take 5 minutes to respond to the majority leader. He is definitely entitled to that. I ask unanimous consent that he be given 5 minutes, Mr. President, and that the 5 minutes not count against the time on this side.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I yield Senator Ayotte up to 10 minutes or such time as she may consume.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, before the Senator departs, I thank her for her comments and her valuable and constructive insights. I would ask her about one thing. I know a lot of our new Members came to Congress, having campaigned and talked to people all over their States, with a passion to do something about the unsustainable spending path we are on. We had a large number who wanted to be on the Budget Committee, and we are glad she just joined us. But let me ask, is it a disappointment to get on the Budget Committee, which the law says should write a budget and have hearings on the budget, and then to find the majority leader has decided not to even allow a budget hearing to take place?

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire. She is following in the footsteps of a great budget leader, chairman, ranking member, Judd Gregg, and brings those good instincts to the body. I ask unanimous consent that the following Republican speakers be limited to 10 minutes each. I, at this point, am pleased to recognize my very able and effective colleague, Senator DeMint, for his comments at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS. I see my colleague Senator Hatch and I will be yielding to him for 10 minutes. I thank my colleague, Senator Toomey, a member of the Budget Committee. He served on the House Budget Committee. He has worked harder than maybe anybody on the committee and has proposed a plan that would actually balance our budget within 10 years. It is the kind of thing we should be debating in the committee. Unfortunately, I know the Senator has to be deeply disappointed because we are not having a markup in committee. We are not even having a chance to bring forth his budget and defend it and point out why he believes it will make America a better place. I thank the Senator from his contributions to the debate and to the committee. Let me note that Senator Hatch is the ranking member of the Finance Committee, a very significant, important committee that deals with the financial challenges our Nation faces every day. I thank the Senator, and I yield to him.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I tell my distinguished colleague that we only have a few minutes left, and the Senator from Utah is waiting. So if the Senator could wrap up briefly. I have thoroughly enjoyed the Senator's remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Senator. I have to say, the Senator's remarks about the progressive budget and the fact that it represents the heart of this Senate Democratic conference's view of the budget is probably correct. It also represents a view that would be widely and strongly rejected by the American people. Senator Lee, from Utah, is a new Senator. He campaigned in every corner of his State. He has talked about this issue and spending and has listened to his people and I am delighted to hear from him at this time. Madam President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Utah have 4 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for allowing us to have a few remarks at this time, after the process has been completed tonight. The Senate has not fulfilled its responsibility. The United States Code that we passed, Congress passed, requires that there be a budget. It requires that Congress commence marking up the budget in the Budget Committee, as the Presiding Officer knows, by April 1, and a concurrent resolution be passed by April 15, setting forth what the Congress authorizes to be spent in the next year. If anybody attempts to spend above that amount, the Budget Act allows a point of order to be raised, and it would require 60 votes to go above that level. So a budget says what we want to spend and makes it difficult for anybody to spend more. It is what we do in our households, it is what our cities and counties do, it is what our State governments do. I know Senator Manchin, the Presiding Officer, as a Governor, he had to deal with his tough budget situation. My Governor, Governor Bentley, just announced he is prorating 15 percent of the discretionary spending for the rest of the year. We are not talking about those kinds of cuts this year in Washington. I was in Estonia, near the Soviet Union on the Baltic Sea, and the proud Estonians had a larger deficit, larger economic decline than we did. The Estonians told us that every Cabinet official took a 40- percent pay cut, every employee took 10 to 20. The health system, one said: My wife is a doctor. She is very unhappy. But they intend to complete the recovery in Estonia without adding to the debt at all. Their debt to GDP is 7 percent. By September 30 of this year, our debt-to-gross domestic product will total 100 percent, and according to the Rogoff-Reinhart study, a great authoritative study that has gained a great deal of applause, when the debt amounts to 90 percent of GDP, economic growth declines by 1 percent. A 1-percent decline in GDP--the experts tell us--is the equivalent of 1 million jobs. So we will be in a position where, because of the debt we have accumulated, the economy will grow 1 percent less and we could have 1 million less jobs. We do not know what our economic growth might be. It looks like it could be less than 2 percent. We are talking about a huge difference in what our economic growth could be this year. Maybe it will be 3. But if it is 3, it would have been 4. If it was 4, it would have been 5. If it is 3, it would be 2 because of this debt. So these are the circumstances we are dealing with. Every witness has told us we need to do something about it. The Nation is in a most serious fix. So there has been a decision made by the leadership of the Senate, the Democratic leadership of the Senate, not to produce a budget. It was interesting, when the President's budget was brought up, every single Member of the Senate--Republicans and Democrats--voted no. We could say: Why did they do that? Well, the President's budget deserved not a single vote. Considering the severe, serious financial condition we are in, the President's budget was the most irresponsible budget that has ever been presented to Congress. It is stunningly short of anything necessary. Erskine Bowles, the man President Obama appointed to head the fiscal commission, said the President's budget was nowhere close to where they will have to go to avoid our fiscal nightmare--nowhere close. But our colleagues, what have they done? They complained about the Ryan budget. They vote against their own, and they vote against any other budget. They vote against the Ryan budget saying it is going to eliminate your Medicare, and you will not receive your Medicare because of Paul Ryan and the mean Republicans. But the Ryan budget made no change in Medicare in the 10 years in the Ryan plan at all, except canceled the President's health care bill and saved hundreds of billions of dollars. What it did was to propose in the future that we develop a new way of administering Medicare that would save money and make it more responsible to individual needs. We refused to even move to that legislation, to discuss it, and to analyze whether it should be done that way or whether it could be done another way. But nobody denies that this budget, that any budget we pass, must confront our entitlement programs. Surely, they do not. So whatever you do, you are attacked by it. Our majority leader, whom I admire and enjoy working with, was quite frank. He said: It would be foolish for us to pass a budget. He did not mean it would be foolish for America. He did not mean it would be foolish for the public interest. He did not mean it would be foolish in terms of containing the reckless spending and dangerous path we are on. He meant it would be foolish politically because he had a plan, and the plan was to attack the people who had the courage, the gumption, and the hard work to produce a budget dealing with the long-term fiscal challenges of America: Paul Ryan and his Budget Committee, wants to attack them, bring up their budget and vote it down, and not produce anything in response. I believe that is an embarrassment to the Senate. It is an utter failure to meet our statutory obligation. More importantly, it is a failure to meet our moral obligation. Many have said: Well, we need to do something because we are putting debt on our children and grandchildren. That is absolutely true. But we have been told by numerous experts, including Mr. Bowles, who chaired the debt commission, that we could be facing a debt crisis in 2 years, give or take a little bit. That was his opinion. His cochairman, Alan Simpson, said it could be 1 year. So we could have another debt financial crisis that could put us back into a recession as a result of our fiscal irresponsibility as soon as 2 years, according to Erskine Bowles--accomplished businessman, successful businessman, President Clinton's Chief of Staff, chosen by President Obama to head the Commission. That is what he told us in the Budget Committee just a few weeks ago. How serious is it? Our highway spending this year is about $40 billion. Last year, this country spent, in interest on our debt, $200- plus billion, five times the highway bill, just for example, and we need to do something about our infrastructure and highways in America. I am very worried about it. I indicated that, just for example, the highway budget is about $40 billion. The Federal Department of Education is about $70 billion. But we spent last year in interest payments on the debt that we have accumulated, over $200 billion. The President submitted his budget. It was favorably commented on by Democratic colleagues and represented what appears to be, I guess, the mainstream Democratic view--although I am pleased to see nobody voted for it. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, which has analyzed the budget the President submitted to us, it would result in an interest payment, in the 10th year, of $940 billion. That is an amount of money that exceeds our imagination. It is larger than the Defense Department budget. It is larger than Medicare. It is larger than Medicaid. It is the fastest growing item in our entire budget. And that assumes a slight increase but modest interest rate, below the 6-percent historical average. So if interest rates were to go up faster--and that is quite possible--instead of $940 billion, we could have trillion-dollar-plus interest payments every year, crowding out the ability of the Education Department, Transportation Department, NOAA, the EPA, and every other agency in government to get funds. We will crowd out that spending by placing an annual burden on our people of $940 billion a year. It is this trend and this path that is unsustainable. We have been told that. I just want to repeat what happened just a few moments ago. What happened? Four measures were brought up by the majority, and they were brought up with the full knowledge that nothing would happen. There were several hours of debate. We voted on four tremendously important items, four budgets for the United States of America, with no real ability to discuss each one of them in any depth at all. It was a political exercise. The majority leader said it would be ``foolish'' for us to pass a budget. In other words, it is foolish for the Democratic majority to commit themselves to any plan for the future of America. It was an avoidance of responsibility. They would not even vote for the President's budget because if they did, they would be responsible for it. What they did was attack the one group of people who have done the right thing, the responsible thing, and that is to produce a historic budget that would basically solve our debt problem--it didn't overreach--and that is the House budget. It was long term, short term, and it dealt with entitlements, discretionary spending, and taxes. It was a thoughtful, important, historic budget. The Chicago Tribune praised it. The Wall Street Journal praised it. The fiscal commission chairmen, Bowles and Simpson, praised it for its courage, its integrity, its lack of gimmicks, and for being honest. Do you know what they said. They said, again, that anyone who opposes the Ryan budget or opposes any one of the budgets, if you don't like it, you should put forth your plan. Has the leadership in the Senate proposed any plan? In a shocking display of irresponsibility--I don't have words to describe the degree of irresponsibility that I think has been shown here tonight--they have said: We are not going to produce anything. We are just going to attack what you have done. Many of our colleagues have said we have to deal with entitlements and confront the surging debt caused thereby; that Medicare and Social Security are in danger and they could go belly-up. We have to change what we are doing. The House wrestled with that. It wasn't within that 10-year window. Everybody who is 55 and above and everybody who is on Medicare today would have no change--none. Yet we have people going around telling our seniors that this Ryan House budget would change their Social Security and they would not get it. In fact, it would save the Social Security Program, put it on a sound basis, and guarantee that people now receiving it and people over 55 who are soon to be receiving it would have no change whatsoever. In fact, in some ways, it would strengthen it for them. This is not correct. Well, do we have a better plan? What about the Becerra rule? I suppose that is Congressman Xavier Becerra they named that for, a Democratic Congressman from Los Angeles. Did they produce anything they think is better? Do they have any plans to change the debt course we are on? Zero, nada. I really believe this is not the responsible way to deal with the challenges this country faces. I am deeply disappointed. The matter is not going away. As ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, I feel a great sense of responsibility to defend the legally required processes of a Budget Act. What kind of ranking member or member of the Budget Committee would I be if I sat by and acknowledged and accepted these four votes as somehow disposing of the situation? What should happen? What should have happened is that by April 1, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, with whom I enjoyed working this year, should have produced a chairman's mark, and it should have gone to the Budget Committee, and we would have had an opportunity to debate and vote on that and discuss all the issues relevant to getting our country on a fine, sound, fiscal path. But I think the majority leader decided that was not a good path. Senator Conrad, if you read the newspapers, apparently brought up his budget, his proposal to the Democratic conference, and it received a chilly reception, according to the newspapers. Senator Conrad has said repeatedly that he knows we are on an unsustainable path. He said once that we are heading to the wall at warp speed. We have to change, he said, because we are on an unsustainable path. But they thought, I suppose, he was too frugal, and so apparently, according to the papers, he came back the next week with a budget that Senator Sanders and some of the others apparently blessed. We thought we were going to have a markup, maybe, and he would bring that forward. They said publicly: We have a budget, and we have basically agreed on a budget, but we are just not bringing it forward. But it should have been brought forward to committee, marked up, passed out of committee, and brought to the floor. It won't pass the committee, they say. What do you mean? We have to pass a budget. The Budget Act provides that it can't be filibustered. It allows the budget to be passed with a simple majority. The Democrats have a majority in the committee. They can pass a budget just like they like it. Whatever they like, they could vote to pass it. Why not? Well, I think it is because they thought it would be foolish politically for them to commit themselves to any plan that dealt with taxes, with spending, with the debt. They didn't want to commit themselves. They decided that the smart thing to do would be to attack the foolish Republicans, who actually had the responsibility and the integrity and the sense of duty to lay out a plan for this country's financial future. Make no mistake about it, a budget is a serious matter. It sets forth your vision for America, how big you would like the government to be, how much tax you want to impose, how much spending you want to incur and how much debt you would like to incur, and it sets it forth before the whole world. We were waiting to see--the House had done their duty--what will the Senate do? Nothing. I don't think that is responsible. I don't believe it is acceptable. I don't accept it. I am going to continue to resist this kind of no- action policy. I hope the American people will register their complaints and concerns with their Senators and demand that this Senate do its duty to set forth a budget that can help contain spending in America and put us on a path to financial stability and allow our economy to begin to grow at a robust rate because I truly believe the debt and the interest we pay is weakening our economy, as the expert economists have told us. Mr. President, we can't quit now. We are not going to quit now. We are going to keep pushing for the kind of budget that will allow us to put this country on a sound path. I am deeply disappointed that we have totally shortcut the entire process. We have entirely avoided the responsibility to cast a serious vote on a budget, bring one up where we have the opportunity to debate and amend it and calculate out and study and make sure there are no gimmicks in there and hidden manipulations that hide the way the numbers appear. We have seen that too often. In fact, if the American people knew the extent to which this Congress, year after year, has manipulated the numbers to hide the serious, irresponsible spending programs we are executing, they would be more angry with us than they are, and 70 percent of Americans think this country is on the wrong track. Fundamentally, I believe that is based on the fact that they think we are spending recklessly, running up too much debt, and endangering the future health and welfare of generations to come. I yield the floor.

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 to speak in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned by our growing financial crisis and really deeply angered by the failure of this Senate to take any meaningful steps to address it. I am going to announce steps I will take to try to force this Senate to do its job since our Democratic leaders seem determined to prevent the people's work from being done. As ranking member of the Budget Committee, I see quite plainly that the process the statutory act requires is not being followed at a time in which we have never faced a greater systemic long-term debt crisis as we face today. The act calls for a budget to be produced by April 15, the Budget Committee to have meetings by April 1, and here we are toward the end of May, about to recess, and we have not even had a hearing in the Budget Committee on the markup of a budget. Budgets, of course, are able to be passed by a simple majority in the Senate, and they have given the majority party in the Senate the opportunity--really the responsibility--to set forth their vision about the financial future of America, to set forth their priorities, how they would conduct the people's business. We know the House of Representatives met that deadline. They passed a historic budget. But the Senate has not done so. All we have seen from Majority Leader Reid are political games, cynical games, distractions and gimmicks to avoid confronting the fiscal nightmare we are now facing. How else can you explain why, in the middle of the crisis, Democratic leaders have not even produced a budget, have not even allowed the committee to meet to work on one? We have not even met to mark up one. We are required by law to produce a budget in committee and pass that budget on to the Senate floor, but this process has been shut down. We have not produced a budget in 754 days. Let me repeat. This great Senate, in a time of financial stress and danger, has not passed a budget in 754 days and has, it appears, no intention of doing one this year. Today I join with the newest member of our Budget Committee, Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, to send a letter to Senator Reid, signed by every Republican Senator in the Senate, pressing him to finally allow the Senate to begin work on a budget. But we are told in the media that the Democrats' refusal to put forth a budget is just good strategy, that it is best that they avoid putting a plan on paper. Here is an excerpt from a recent article in the Wall Street Journal. Fittingly, the article is entitled ``Democrats Unhurried in Work on Budget.'' I would say that is true. This is what the article said: As a political matter, the Democratic strategists say there may be little benefit in producing a budget that would inevitably include unpopular items. Many Democrats believe a recent House GOP proposal to overhaul Medicare is proving to be unpopular and has given Democrats a political advantage. They loath to give up that advantage by proposing higher taxes. Senate Democrats plan to hold a vote on the Ryan plan hoping to force GOP Senators to cast a vote on the Medicare overhaul that could prove politically difficult. This is astonishing. It is the position of the great Democratic Party that their vision for deficit reduction is so unpopular or unfeasible that they won't even articulate it in public, let alone offer it up as a budget? The heads of President Obama's fiscal commission warn that an economic crisis may be just 1 year or 2 years away. That was the testimony they gave us in committee. It could be a year, a little sooner or a little later, said Erskine Bowles, Chairman of the commission, along with Alan Simpson, who said it could be 1 year, in his opinion, that we could have a debt crisis--not a little warning from people who spent months hearing witnesses and studying the debt situation facing our country. But it appears the leaders of the Senate would prefer to hide in the hills and take shots at Republicans from a distance. Is that what they prefer? Chairman Paul Ryan and the House GOP had put forward a plan to get this country out of a looming, Greek-like debt crisis, make our economy more competitive, and save Medicare for future generations. It is an honest, courageous plan that will improve the quality of life for millions of Americans and do the job short term and long term. It may not be perfect. I am not saying it is perfect. I am saying it is a serious plan, seriously considered, that confronts both long-term and short-term problems and reforms Medicare and puts it on a path to salvation. But all we hear are attacks. By contrast, the budget the President sent forward doubles our national debt and puts our entire country at risk, even though the President promised it would ``not add more to the debt'' and have us ``live within our means.'' Those were the President's words. In the 10 years of his budget, analyzed by the objective Congressional Budget Office, they tell us the lowest single annual deficit out of those 10 would be $740 billion--a stunning amount. They would average almost $1 trillion. The last years--8, 9, and 10--of his 10-year budget do not show the debt going down but going back up to $1 trillion. It was the most irresponsible budget that has ever been presented to this Nation. It is a stunning failure to lead at a time of financial crisis. It doubled the debt. It increased the debt over the projections of our baseline as it is. Instead of helping, it made it worse because it raised taxes and raised spending, and it raised spending more than it raised taxes. So where do our colleagues in the Senate stand? They refuse to put forward their own plan. Last week, Senate Majority Leader Reid said the Democrats don't need a budget. ``There is no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion.'' He said it would be ``foolish'' to present one. The only thing that is foolish is violating the Congressional Budget Act in such a cynical attempt for political gain. The decision not to produce a budget is not a decision based on what is best for our country but based, as you can see from the quotes of the staffers and actually Senator Reid's own quote--it was designed for political advantage. The Ryan budget is honest. If anybody confronts the budget situation in an honest way, they know the budget is going to have to have some bad news. It is going to have to tell people things cannot continue as they are today but we are going to have to do better. We are going to have to reduce spending. So maybe for some people that is not popular. Isn't that what we are paid to do here, serve the national interest, tell the truth about what is happening in our country? We find ourselves in the remarkable position this week of having Senate Democratic leaders bring forward not a Senate budget but bring forward the House Republican budget, only to vote it down while offering no alternative of their own. What a cynical ploy. Think about it. Senator Reid said we are going to bring up the House budget, we are going to vote on it, and every member of his caucus--I am sure he has already counted the heads--will vote no. It has no chance of passage. What good is that? The Senate has a statutory duty under the Budget Act to produce a budget. We have not even attempted to produce a budget. They will attempt to bring forward a budget they have no intention of working on, no intention of taking seriously, no intention of opening for amendment or discussion, with only one goal: to use their majority to vote it down. I look forward to the chance to support the House budget. I look forward to casting a vote which says we will be getting our spending under control, we will deal honestly with our budget challenges short term and long term. I look forward to voting for a budget that creates jobs, makes us more competitive, and deals honestly with the debt threats we have. But let's look at the bigger picture. This week, the planned series of votes are designed by the majority leader to fail, of course. They are designed as a gimmick to distract attention from the Senate's failure to produce an honest plan. They are designed to keep this Senate from doing its job and defending this Republic from grave financial danger. I, therefore, will not provide unanimous consent for any prearranged package of votes doomed to fail, intended to fail. Anyone can call up these budget votes, consistent with the rules, anytime they wish. But a package deal that wastes the Senate's time I cannot and will not support. The majority leader is wasting the American people's time. I am here to speak honestly and just tell the truth about that. That is the plain fact. It is a political gimmick that is going on. Further, I will not agree to unanimous consent on any motion to adjourn for the Memorial Day recess. If we are going to close down this Chamber for another week without having produced a budget, without having even scheduled a committee hearing, then I am going to require we have a vote on it. Let's vote to go home, not having done the people's business. Paul Ryan is leading. Speaker Boehner is leading. The House Republicans are leading. They produced a document that can be defended, that has integrity, that deals with our short-term spending problem and our long-term spending problem. It is not perfect, of course. We have the opportunity to amend it. We have an opportunity to pass a budget of our own that might be different, but it will get us off the unsustainable path we are on. But our Democratic leader and the Democrats who control the Chamber are refusing to allow a budget to go forward. They are refusing to share with the American people the contents of the plan they say they have behind closed doors. They say they have one. We read in the paper they have one. Why don't we see it? So on Memorial Day--a week from today--we honor those who have fallen serving their country. We honor the brave men and women who have risked and given everything for our freedom and our future. We truly do. We honor those who gave their last breath to preserve our way of life. But now that way of life is threatened by a tidal wave of debt that we refuse to confront. It is a debt we have created, that we are growing, and that is up to us to stop, to defeat. That the Senate would go into recess this week refusing to work on a budget or even hold a public meeting on it, a further hearing on it, is unthinkable. Our soldiers serving overseas will not get the next week off. Why should the Senate get a week off after failing miserably to do its job? My message to the majority leader is simple. If you object to the House GOP plan or to other Republican plans, then you must come forward with your own honest plan to prevent financial catastrophe and create a more prosperous future. Indeed, I close with this quote from the preamble to the fiscal commission report. This is what the Commission said because they anticipated just this kind of political difficulty. They anticipated that politicians in our country would do exactly what they are doing in the Senate--not what they did in the House where they faced up to their responsibility, but in the Senate. This is the quote: In the weeks and months to come, countless advocacy groups and special interests will try mightily through expensive, dramatic, and heart-wrenching media assaults to exempt themselves from shared sacrifice and common purpose. The national interest, not special interests, must prevail. We urge leaders and citizens with principled concerns about any of our recommendations to follow what we call the Becerra rule: Don't shoot down an idea without offering a better idea in its place. That is exactly what the majority leader plans to do. He said: We don't need a Democratic budget. It would be foolish for us to produce one. We will just call up this House budget, and we will attack it, and with our Senate majority we will vote it down. But we won't produce our own. We won't produce any other alternative. We won't tell the American people our vision, our prospects and plans for getting this country off the unsustainable debt path we are on, and on to the path of prosperity and job creation and a sound financial future. Why don't we hear it? Because, as one of their staff members said in that comment to the press, it might cause somebody to object. We might have, as the debt commission warned, advocacy groups and special interests that are going to rise up and complain about anything that reduces a dime they receive. I don't deny in an honest budget, at this point in history where 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed, we are going to have to reduce some spending. Some good people are going to feel it. It is not going to be easy, just as the debt commission told us. Don't we know that? I thought that was what the past election was about last fall, when the big spenders and the high tax guys got shellacked. I thought Congress would get the message. Apparently, we haven't. The debt situation we are in is not a little biddy thing. Under the Congressional Budget Office analysis of President Obama's 10-year budget, last year we had interest on the debt that we now owe of a little over $200 billion. According to the analysis of the President's budget, in the tenth year, under his plan, the Congressional Budget Office estimates we will pay, in interest in 1 year, $940 billion. I know that is so much money it is difficult for people to comprehend it. Alabama is a State of just about average size. We are about one- fiftieth of the United States. We have a lean government that is making some serious reductions in spending because our money hasn't come in, and we have a constitutional amendment that requires the budget to be balanced. But the amount of money that Alabama spends on its general fund obligations is $1.8 billion. The President's proposed budget would cause the interest on our debt in 1 year to reach $940 billion. That is way above what we spend on defense. It is way above what we spend on Medicare. It is the fastest growing item in the entire spending plan of America--interest on the debt--and that is why Mr. Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve; Mr. Alan Greenspan, our former Chairman; the International Monetary Fund; Moody's; the debt commission have all told us this is unsustainable. We can't continue. We won't go 10 years without a debt crisis. When asked, Mr. Bowles said we could have one in 2 years, maybe a little sooner, maybe a little later. I am not predicting that, but if we don't change that could happen, as expert after expert has said. I hope in the days to come we will see the regular order be reestablished. Our colleagues say they have a budget. Let's bring it forward. Let's see it. They certainly have talked to the Democratic Members on more than one occasion about it. Maybe it has some good things on which we can agree. It will probably have some things that I wouldn't agree on, but it can be passed. We can't filibuster a budget. Under the Budget Act, it can be passed by a simple majority. A budget can clear the Senate, but you know what. If we produce a budget, we have to tell the American people what we really believe about America, where we really want this country to go. Do we want a limited government, or do we want to continue to expand a larger and larger government? Do we want to raise taxes more and more to sustain spending levels higher than we have ever had them before? Is that what we want? Or are we prepared to make reductions in spending? One or the other has to occur. We cannot continue to borrow at the rate we are borrowing, which every expert has told us. I am challenging the leaders of this Senate who asked for the job, who asked to be leaders of the Senate, asked to be given the responsibility of helping guide our Nation, to step forward and provide leadership. In the joint statement issued by Mr. Bowles and Alan Simpson that they submitted to the Budget Committee, they said our Nation has never faced a more predictable financial crisis. In other words, to the experts they heard from and who testified to them, and then based on their own study, they believe we are heading to a financial crisis. Alan Greenspan recently said: I think the Congress will, at some point, pass reform in spending and budget matters. The only question is, Will they pass it before or after the debt crisis hits. So we have that challenge. We have no higher duty than to protect our people from a foreseeable danger. That danger is out there. We are heading right toward it. It is time for us to stand up and be honest and face that challenge. I do not believe business as usual should continue, and I will object to it so far as I am able. I thank the Acting President pro tempore and yield the floor. 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 that Senator Hatch and I be able to speak in a colloquy.