Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to discuss today the tragedy that has occurred in Alabama and other States across the Southeast as a result of the tornadoes that hit our region in a 24-hour period between 8 a.m. in the morning on April 27 and 8 a.m. in the morning on April 28. The National Weather Service estimates there were a total of 312 tornadoes across the Southeast. The worst outbreak previously reported occurred in April of 1974, and that was with 148 tornadoes. The Birmingham-Tuscaloosa F4 tornado had a path with a maximum width of 1.5 miles and a length, from the Tuscaloosa to Birmingham area, of 80 miles. It stayed on the ground almost continuously--very unusual. It went through a number of populated areas, and that tornado alone resulted in 65 deaths. Alabama's current death toll is nearing 250, with thousands injured. Frankly, after seeing the damage to the affected areas, I am amazed we did not lose more lives. As I talked to mayors and others on the ground, they said the same thing. I talked to Mayor Gunnin in Hackleburg today. I believe he was the one who told me there were about 18 killed, and he was pleased it was that low. They were hammered with an F5, the highest, strongest tornado, which basically destroyed his whole town. All his businesses, including the distribution center for a jeans manufacturing company, have been destroyed. It is very difficult for them to pay for anything. Their businesses that pay a sales tax that goes to the city have been damaged, and he has made the point--and it is a good example--that he, in this little town of Hackleburg, had emergency funds, but they have been on massive overtime for the week since the event and other costs are arising and it is very difficult for him. I want to thank President Obama for the quick response he made to the tragedy. The people of Alabama appreciated the fact that he, and later Cabinet members, actually visited some of the devastated areas. We appreciate the quick action in declaring Alabama and other areas major disaster areas. That does help in a lot of different ways. I also had the opportunity to be with him in Tuscaloosa when he came there. Mrs. Obama, of course, did a beautiful job also of talking to the people who have lost so much and comforting them. Secretary Napolitano came on Sunday to the Pratt City area in Birmingham, along with several other Cabinet members. I think they also got a real appreciation for the severity of the damage and reassured Alabamians that help would be on the way in an appropriate fashion. It is certain that it will take, for a number of our communities, an integrated, coordinated State, local, and Federal response to get these communities back on track. That is why we have a Federal Emergency Management Agency. That is why we have monies in the budget for these kinds of things, although this one is a particularly damaging event, I have to say. As the ranking member on the Budget Committee, I am aware we have to be careful about how we spend money. We certainly don't have any money--not a dime--to waste. I have to tell you, every time I have been there or I have talked to people on the ground, they tell me how impressed they are with the volunteers who are arriving from all over the country, bringing food and water and helping people who are already working. They are bringing chainsaws to help clear roads and highways and driveways to people's homes. That has been real encouraging, and it makes me very proud to represent a group of people who have the integrity and the work ethic and the determination to overcome tragedy. It has been encouraging to me. Having walked through the devastated neighborhoods less than 24 hours after the tornado, I can tell you people were stunned at the damages, at the complete loss of homes and belongings. Many of the people believed themselves lucky to be alive. Their entire roof was gone, most of the walls were gone, and yet somehow they came out with minor injuries or less severe injuries. Others, of course, did not survive, and others received severe injuries. It is always amazing to me in a tornado situation how a house can be just obliterated, and persons can come out of it with not too severe an injury, and for that they were expressing great appreciation. I think it is a reflection of the faith these individuals have in a higher being who, I think, gives them the courage to go on. One of the things that is perfectly clear is that housing in some areas will be a critical matter. Many houses are totally destroyed-- nothing but a concrete slab left. Of course, many mobile homes or manufactured homes were completely lost. They are not on a slab, so those homes have been rolled over and completely demolished or disappeared basically. So we are going to need to work in a way that FEMA has done before to provide emergency housing. In the larger areas where there is more housing around--there is vacant housing in some of our areas--they ought to be moved promptly into that vacant housing that currently exists. In some areas there is just not housing for individuals to move into. I was told today by two mayors that they have people still in recreational areas--gyms and that kind of thing--using those as a place for shelter. We are definitely not where we need to be. Yet some FEMA trailers are being moved into areas of the State. That may have to be done. I wish we could avoid that step, but in many areas it cannot be avoided--avoided in the sense that, to me, the best way to handle a situation where a person's home is gone is to help that person move as quickly as possible into what could be a permanent residence-- either through rental or purchase. The longer that person is in a temporary residence the more likely they are also often receiving Federal assistance. As long as they are in this temporary limbo circumstance, their life is less stable, and the Federal Government is spending more money, money that could be utilized better if we can avoid spending it for temporary housing so it could be used to facilitate permanent housing. That would be a more effective policy, but it is not easy. In some instances, it cannot be done. Initial reports indicate that Alabama's losses may rival or surpass its $1 billion loss in Hurricane Katrina. That is a factor we do not normally expect from tornadoes. We will wrestle with those costs as we go forward. But dollar losses are nothing compared to the severe loss of life. We have a record-setting loss of life. Going through the Rosedale Court area of Tuscaloosa, AL, seeing first responders and volunteers frantically trying to help--in particular, they were searching for a missing young girl. They kept on and there were a large number of people there throughout this area where metal was twisted and roofs were gone and no walls, hardly, were standing. Materials were 3 feet deep on the floor, of plywood, roofing and the like. They found that young child, but unfortunately it was too late and her life had been lost. That is the kind of thing that has been happening throughout the State. Our people are responding with courage and dignity and hard work. Volunteers from all over the country and all over Alabama are assisting. I was with a seafood group Friday, down from Bayou La Batre, AL, the seafood capital, in many ways, of the Gulf of Mexico, and they had been helped so many times over the decades because of various hurricanes that came through, they wanted to help so they brought large amounts of shrimp and seafood and their cookers. They were going to Tuscaloosa or some of the other areas and serving people out there who were volunteering or were emergency responders who were working to help in that neighborhood. That is the kind of thing that makes us proud and makes us all recognize the good that we have in our people. I wished to share these thoughts and to note I have filed a resolution that deals with this disaster, expressing the condolences of the United States and noting many of the factors that are relevant to this damage and I will be asking the Senate agree to that. I note it has been cosponsored by Senator Shelby, my colleague from Alabama, Senators Alexander and Corker from Tennessee, Senators Cochran and Wicker from Mississippi, Senators Chambliss and Isakson from Georgia, and I understand others are signing on as we proceed. I thank the administration for helping to respond properly. I thank the volunteers from all over America who have come to our State to assist those in need. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 I be able to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to speak in opposition to the nomination of James Cole to be Deputy Attorney General of the United States, on whom we will be voting a little later this afternoon. Despite President Obama's recess appointment of Mr. Cole, who has had significant opposition in the committee, and was not looking at smooth sailing--I do believe we should oppose his confirmation and his permanent appointment based on some concerns I have with his record, specifically his criminal justice view on the war on terror, which I believe is utterly wrong, and his questionable decisions as an outside consultant for AIG, the big insurance company that had to be bailed out to the tune of, I think, $170 billion. He was an independent consultant, supposed to be monitoring that company for other errors they had made previously. So that is a concern to me. I served 15 years in the Department of Justice--as the U.S. attorney for almost 12, and as an assistant U.S. attorney. I respect the Department. I love the Department of Justice, but I am getting concerned about it. I am not happy with some of the decisions and philosophies that are emanating from the Department. I believe they do not reflect the highest standards and qualities that we expect from that great Department. This nominee has a lot of good qualities. I believe he has a number of strengths that--has management and some experience in the Department for which I would give him credit. But at this point in history, I believe his approach, particularly to the war on terror, along with the Attorney General's approach to the war on terror are not good. I have just about had enough of them. I am just going to say this: I am not voting for another nominee--I am not going to vote for this one--who spent their time defending terrorists before they went to the Department. It is all right to defend an unpopular person, but 13 to 16 members of the Department of Justice, political appointees by this administration, have had as their background defending terrorists, including the Solicitor General nominee who is going to be coming up in committee this week, and also working for or representing the ACLU. So when we get this much of a tilt in the leadership of the Department, it gives me great concern that the great Department I love and respect is getting off base. So I think it is important to note that right now one of the top priorities at the Department of Justice must be the recent warnings we received that the terrorist groups ``almost certainly'' will try to avenge the death of Osama bin Laden, and the continuing economic crisis that faces our country. So I believe the President should be nominating proven prosecutors-- prosecutors of terrorists, frankly--for top positions in the law enforcement agency, the U.S. Department of Justice. I do not think we need any more terrorist defense attorneys. When I was the U.S. attorney I hired a lot of assistant U.S. attorneys. I looked for proven prosecutors wherever I could find them. I did not go around to look for people who spent their spare time volunteering to defend terrorists or writing papers defending criminals. That is just the way I see it, frankly. I have to be honest about it. So we have had this one, we have had that one, we have had another one, and another and another. Now we have 13 to 16 who have been appointed to the Department of Justice who have had this background. Defending the unpopular is not disqualifying. We voted, and I voted, for a number of people in the Department who have been involved in these kinds of defense efforts, who filed lawsuits against President Bush. They thought they were doing something great. I guess they did not turn down the evidence if it helped in any way lead to the location of Osama bin Laden. We do have standards about how we should gather evidence, and lines should not be crossed. But that does not mean we are not in a war. It does not mean the people who are attacking us are common criminals who need to be tried in civilian courts. They are at war with us. Bin Laden said he is at war with us. He declared war on us. You do not treat prisoners of wars, captured enemy combatants, like you treat common criminals. This is fundamental. I served in the Army Reserve a number of years, some of that time as a JAG officer. I taught courses on prisoners of war and how to treat prisoners and the standards of the field manual. I do not claim to be a great expert at it, but I did it. I had some experience in it. Mr. Cole consistently--and some of these nominees to the Department-- takes the view that terrorists are criminals and not unlawful combatants. Let me just say briefly, if a person is caught--a murderer, a rapist, or virtually any kind of criminal--when they are taken into custody, as the Presiding Officer knows, who was a good prosecutor himself, they have to be--before you can interview them, once they are in custody you have to give them Miranda warnings. That authorizes and tells them--basically tells them: You did not have to make any statements at all. It basically says: If you are an idiot, you will make statements. You are entitled to a lawyer. If you do not have any money, we will appoint you a lawyer. You have to go before a magistrate within a matter of hours. You are entitled to discovery of the government's case in short order, and you are entitled to a speedy trial. You are entitled to prowl around in the government's case and find all of the evidence the government has. In war, that is not so. A classic case was Ex parte Quirin in World War II when German saboteurs were dropped off on our coast from a submarine. They were going to sabotage the United States of America. They were apprehended, taken to military tribunals, tried, and most of them were executed in a matter of months. The case went to the Supreme Court, Ex parte Quirin, and was affirmed. There has never been any doubt that unlawful combatants can be tried for their crimes in military courts. It is done all over the world. It is an established principle. Now, let's get one thing straight. If you are a lawful combatant, and you are captured on the battlefield--whether you are a Japanese soldier or German soldier or Italian soldier--and you comply with the laws of war and you wear your uniform and you do not attack deliberately men, women, and children, civilians, and try to kill them, and you comply with other rules of war, you cannot be tried. You can just be detained until the war is over, but you do not get lawyers. You do not get trials and discovery and all of that sort of thing. But if in conducting your military campaign you violate the internally respected laws of war, you cannot only be held as a prisoner of war, but the nation that is holding you can try you for violations of the laws of war. So that is how these 9/11 attackers who did not wear uniforms, who attacked deliberately civilians, are perfectly fit to be tried as war criminals or unlawful combatants. They have announced their intention to destroy the United States, to attack the United States. They have said they are at war with us. But they have done it in an unlawful way, and they can be tried in military commissions. This allows the military to conduct interrogations according to the laws of war over a period of months, years even. Sometimes after months a prisoner will start to talk. You never know why they start talking. But to deny ourselves the right to allow those kinds of things to happen, to say we have to try these individuals, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in civilian courts is clearly in error. But that is the Attorney General's position. I asked him about it last week when he testified before the Judiciary Committee. He said: It still remains the policy of the Department of Justice that persons who are arrested as terrorists are presumed to be tried in civilian court, although Congress has passed a law prohibiting moneys to be expended for that, on the 9/11 attackers. The Attorney General is in a huff and said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in Guantanamo under military procedures as an unlawful combatant, but he does not like it. That is not his view. It looks like everybody he wants to hire to be in the Department of Justice agrees with that erroneous view. It is not a close question. This is not a close question. There is no reason a terrorist who is apprehended in the United States ought to be provided lawyers and Miranda warnings. They are combatants. They are not common criminals. Thinking this way has caused dangerous confusion. As our troops and intelligence community continue to work night and day to keep our country safe, it is imperative that we view the war on terror as a real war and not a criminal matter and regard those who wish to perpetrate terror on this country as enemy combatants, not plain criminals. Like many in the administration, Mr. Cole disagrees. In 2002, not long after the 9/11 attacks, he wrote an op-ed and published it criticizing then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in military commissions. They researched the law. Attorney General Ashcroft knew what he was doing. They decided they were going to try these individuals by military commissions. He had written an op-ed attacking the Attorney General for it. So now that is the man we have as the nominee for the Deputy Attorney General of the United States. At his hearing last Congress, Mr. Cole repeated the prevailing and confusing Justice Department position that decisions regarding whether captured terrorists should be tried in civilian courts or before military commissions ``should be made on a case-by-case basis based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances available at the time of a suspect's capture.'' Is this going to happen in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, wherever else they may be in the United States is not a practical policy because we have to tell the individuals who are making those captures what the rules are. As the Attorney General said, they still adhere to the view that the presumption is, the individual will be tried in civilian court. Therefore, the presumption is, within a short time of their being taken into custody, they should be given Miranda warnings, offered a lawyer, and set for a preliminary court appearance, which could reveal to all the other terrorists that their partner in war has been captured and allow them to escape. It is a wrong view, and why they persist in this is beyond my understanding. Congress understands it and the American people do also. This administration has established a policy that declares there is a presumption of civilian trials and has failed to articulate a clear policy for designating captured terrorists as enemy combatants or criminal defendants. So I remain very unconvinced that the next captured terror suspect will not be given the rights of a common criminal and told he has the right to remain silent to the detriment of crucial intelligence gathering. One of the most significant findings of the 9/11 Commission was that intelligence gathering, intelligence possession about what the enemy is doing is the best way to protect our country, not prosecuting them after the fact. So telling someone they have the right to remain silent and they have a lawyer who is going to insist that they not make any statements, does that help us gather intelligence? If it is required by the U.S. Constitution, we will do it. We will just plain do it, regardless, but it is not required by law, history or the Constitution. Law, history, and the Constitution allow these enemy combatants to be tried in military commissions and they don't have to be given Miranda warnings, which was a court-created rule a number of years ago that never was understood before and is not practiced, to my knowledge, in any other Nation in the whole world. Of course, all this provides poor guidance for our law enforcement, military, and intelligence officers as they go about their efforts, and it is a grievous and dangerous mistake to continue this policy. It seems to me that Mr. Cole and Attorney General Holder are cut from the same cloth on this issue. I am uneasy about these two individuals holding the top two positions in the Department of Justice. Now the Solicitor General nominee seems to hold similar views and, if confirmed, he will be one of the highest ranking people in the Department. Their policy views appear to control the Department of Defense. In other words, if they say this is the rule, the Department of Defense has to give the Miranda warnings and so forth if they are involved in a capture, and it directly controls the FBI, which is part of the Department of Justice. As the acting second in command at the Justice Department, Mr. Cole would play a lead role in decisionmaking in the terror prosecutions throughout the country. The Justice Department's continued insistence on a presumption of civilian trials for terrorists confirms my concerns that Mr. Cole has adhered to the failed pre-9/11 law enforcement approach to terrorists, an approach the 9/11 Commission and the Nation as a whole recognized was in error and should be changed. I thought we had clearly made that move. Apparently, we haven't. Also of concern, from 2003 to 2007, Mr. Cole represented a Saudi Prince against insurance carriers and September 11 victims who alleged that the Saudi Prince helped finance terrorists. Reportedly, Mr. Cole's client was linked through Treasury Department documents to the financial support of extremist groups through the Al-Haramain Foundation, a Saudi charity that had diverted funds to al-Qaida before and after 9/11. While attorneys are free to, and should be free to, represent unpopular clients, Mr. Cole is one of a long line of political appointees at the Department of Justice who seem to me to be questionable choices for key posts at the agency that is charged with defending national security, given their choices to represent the very individuals and groups whose goal it is to attack this country or kill Americans. According to press reports, at least 13 to 16 current Obama administration political appointees, including the current Solicitor General nominee who represented Jose Padilla, previously provided legal counsel to suspected or convicted terrorists and enemy combatants being held in detention or to leftwing organizations that actively sought to reverse Bush administration antiterrorist and detainee policies-- policies, I might add, that were a contributing factor to the elimination of bin Laden and many other terrorists throughout this past decade. I am curious to know if they have appointed anyone to key positions in the Department of Justice who has ever prosecuted a terrorist. I would like to know that. Maybe they have. Surely, somebody has, but it looks odd to me that so many of those who have been on the other side have been given top appointments. On another subject, I am very disappointed with this administration's abdication of its duty to defend congressionally enacted laws, specifically the Defense of Marriage Act. Attorney General Holder has stated President Obama had decided he would no longer defend this law, after reviewing the Attorney General's recommendation and that the law falls under the exception in which ``the Department of Justice cannot offer a reasonable argument in defense of the statute's constitutionality.'' Well, it has been defended and upheld by a number of courts. How do we waltz in there and decide we are not going to defend a congressionally enacted statute signed into law by President Clinton because they don't like it? That is how it appears to me. The administration apparently came to this conclusion after unilaterally deciding that ``classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny''--in the face of precedent from 11 circuit courts of appeal holding that such classifications should be reviewed under the much lower rational basis standard. There is a very big difference between refusing to defend a law the administration regards as unconstitutional and refusing to defend a law that the administration opposes on the policy grounds.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Department of Justice is a great department, and they have some very fine people there. I know Mr. Cole has some good qualities. I supported Mr. Holder for Attorney General, but I am very uneasy about the direction the Department is taking on a large number of issues, and I believe one of the reasons this is happening is because they have surrounded themselves with a group of leftist lawyers, activist lawyers who don't operate according to the more traditional views of law and justice in America. That is my view. Other Senators may disagree. That is my view. I am not able to support Mr. Cole for that and the reasons I have stated. I hope in the future the administration will appoint more nominees that have proven records of independence, effective prosecution, and commitment to law. I thank the Chair and 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 understand that maybe there is an agreement that another Member will speak at 11, so I will yield at that time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am concerned about the financial status of our country. We are clearly on an unsustainable spending path. The people are rightly furious with their Congress. We should, as they well know, never have gotten ourselves in the financial situation we are in today, where we are projected to have a deficit this fiscal year, of $1.5 trillion--the largest deficit the country has ever had-- on top of deficits of the last 2 years of $1.2 trillion and $1.3 trillion. We are on a path to doubling the entire U.S. debt in less than 4 years. In the next 3 to 4 years we will double the entire debt of the United States. We are on an unsustainable path, as every witness who has testified in recent years before our Budget Committee has stated. It is an unacceptable situation. There was a shellacking in the last election of people, the big government folks. We have not even had a budget in 2 years--in 735 days we have not had a budget. The Budget Act requires the Congress to pass a budget by April 15. The House has done theirs. The Republican House has passed a budget, a historic budget. The Democratic Senate is now talking about commencing hearings on Tuesday. I hope we have a good hearing. Maybe we will. I just say that our members, the Republican members of the Budget Committee, asked our chairman to do as the House did and make public their budget in advance of the hearing so it can be examined--it is a complicated document, hard to examine, and it takes some time and effort--and not just plop it down the day the hearing starts. I have been informed that business as usual will continue--unlike what the House did in having a document out early. They will bring out a budget that day, and I guess we will commence to try to vote on it. I don't think that is a healthy way to succeed. We are facing the greatest financial risk, maybe, this country has ever faced. The President appointed a fiscal commission--we call it the debt commission--cochaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, who were appointed by the President. They wrote a document and presented it to us with their remarks, which said this Nation is facing the most predictable economic crisis in its history. In other words, they are saying the path we are on is so unsustainable that it is easy to predict that we are facing and heading toward a financial crisis. There is no higher duty or responsibility for Members of the Congress of the United States than to protect the people of this country from a foreseeable danger. When asked by Chairman Conrad when we might have such a crisis, Mr. Bowles said it could be 2 years, a little less or a little more. We could have a financial crisis like the one Greece had, or another recession, a surge of inflation, or a surge in interest rates. Senator Simpson, cochairman of the commission, said he thinks it could be 1 year. The S&P bond evaluators warned that they could downgrade our debt. In fact, Moody's, in December, warned that they could reduce the rating of the American debt in less than 2 years. We are in a serious unsustainable position. We haven't even had a budget. Well, the President is required by law to submit a budget. Every President does. I asked, when he made his State of the Union Address, that he would address and discuss the danger we are in, why the Nation needs to reduce spending, why it is not some partisan brouhaha but a real threat to the future of the country, and why it is that we must take steps to pull back. He really did not do that in his State of the Union Address. He talked about investments and more investments. Then I asked that he produce a budget that helps get us over the unsustainable path. I was never more disappointed in the President's budget. He claimed it would save $1 trillion over 10 years. How much is that? Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which objectively analyzes these things, the deficit will increase, at the rate we are spending, over the next 10 years, $14 trillion. What is saving $1 billion? Not nearly enough to get us off the unsustainable path. The debt commission recommended a $4 trillion reduction in spending, which was not enough, either. This was his own commission that he appointed. That was not enough. But at least the numbers were fairly honest. The President's numbers, unfortunately, were not even honest. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed his budget, and they concluded that it would not reduce the projected increase in debt by $1 trillion, from $14 trillion to $13 trillion. What CBO said was that it was worse. It would add to the debt $2.7 trillion over the CBO baseline. I said at the time that it was the most irresponsible budget ever presented. Maybe someone can find somewhere in the distant past a more irresponsible budget. But when we know we are facing debts and interest rates the likes of which we have never seen before, we need to recognize that we need to make changes. His budget did not change. For example, his budget called for a 10.5-percent increase in educational funding. It called for a 9.5-percent increase in the Energy Department. It called for a 10.5-percent increase in the State Department. It called for a 60-percent increase in spending for the Transportation Department, without any real source of revenue to pay for it, in order to have a monumental new program to build high-speed rail and other items. We do not have the money. The inflation rate is not above 3 percent, and we are getting double-digit increases when the country cannot afford the path we are on. It is unbelievable, really. After taking great heat from objective observers, the President made a speech. He had a paragraph or two in this speech about the reason we need to have some restraint and reduce spending and why we could not just invest, invest, invest, why we needed to restrain spending. That was in his speech. At least he acknowledged it a little bit, although it was not the detailed, serious engagement of the American people in a discussion as to why we cannot continue at the pace we are on. It was not sufficient to my way of thinking. Maybe I am biased. I do not think so. I do not think he has done that. In fact, when the Republicans in the House proposed reducing spending this year, he steadfastly opposed it. We have a pattern with the President. He says he is for doing something about the debt path we are on. He opposes any specific action that actually makes a difference in that regard. Then, finally, when they were dragged kicking and screaming into saving $300 billion over 10 years, the President took credit for it as if it was his idea when they have been opposing it all along. The Democratic leader here proposed a $4 billion reduction in spending, which was nothing. I am worried about where we are heading, how serious we are. The Senate Republican budget staff has looked at the President's speech and tried to see what is in it and see where we could go from there. What they found is that it does not reduce spending by $4 trillion. His framework, as he called it, to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion would actually grow the deficit by $2.2 trillion above the Congressional Budget Office baseline. The American people deserve an honest, fact-based budget. Instead, the President's deficit speech was the biggest gimmick yet. An analysis of the President's April 13 speech exposes the falsity of the claim that this new framework would result in a $4 trillion reduction in the deficit. The announcement reveals that the President's framework is simply a rhetorically repackaged version of the budget he submitted on February 14, a budget that the CBO estimated could actually worsen our deficits by $2.7 trillion. The committee staff has concluded that the President's framework, compared to the current CBO baseline, would now worsen the debt by $2.2 trillion over 10 years. The President's speech is a sleight-of-hand process that creates the impression of bringing new deficit reduction measures to the table without actually doing so, leaving us at bottom with the original flawed proposal, only presented in language that seems to be new. Here is how the process worked in the speech and how we analyzed it. I believe this is a fair analysis of it. One, he offers the same proposals in his framework as his formal budget submission but uses new language. Two, he assumes savings from his February budget that the Congressional Budget Office has already found to be bogus. He continues to assume savings that the objective Congressional Budget Office says are not legitimate savings. If you score savings in your budget, you can claim you made savings when you have not. We have seen that time and time again. In fact, it is one reason this government is in so much debt. CBO, by the way, is a bipartisan group, but its leaders are selected by the Democratic majority. They have the majority. This is a group who is not hostile to the President, but they have rejected many of his claims of savings. Three, it calculates the savings over 12 years. Everybody has been talking about 10 years. He submitted a 10-year budget. To make his numbers look better, he extends it to 12 years and claims more savings than otherwise would be the case if you are comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges--a 10-year budget. He adds long-term savings from the just-passed continuing resolution. He claims credit for the spending reductions the House of Representatives forced on us. Some said it was not nearly enough. That is really true. They had proposed saving about $800 billion over 10 years. By the time Democratic resistance had gone forward and the President had resisted, we ended up with only about a $300 billion savings over 10 years. He claims credit for that in his numbers. As the analysis demonstrates, the framework in his speech offered no new proposals beyond the dangerously flawed February budget. Even if he used their own estimates that have been discredited by CBO, the framework still falls an astonishing $3.2 trillion short of what the deficit commission he appointed recommended. Perhaps this is why the White House has been unwilling to heed the call of the Senate Budget Committee Republicans. We wrote the President. He has a huge staff over there who works every year on producing a budget. We said: If you made a speech now and if you changed what you had in your budget, translate that into a new budget and send it to us. We had that done in the past a number of times. They refuse. Why? Because a speech is more generalized, it is harder to score, it is harder to analyze, and when you put it into actual print, it can be analyzed, the numbers can be totaled, the deficits can be calculated, and you find out whether it actually does anything worthwhile. They refuse to do it. As it stands now, we have no plan to have any real reduction of the deficit we are facing from this administration or the Democratic Senate, let alone a framework to reduce it by $4 trillion. But they pretend it is so, and that is offensive. The American people are not happy about it. They know this Senate and this Congress have a responsibility under the law and under any morality and decency to produce a budget that says what we are going to do with their money the next year and how much deficit we are going to incur, how much debt we are going to increase. They have a right to see that. All we have seen is a pushback and lulling and talk of that kind. So we are heading to it. We are heading to a budget situation in the committee next week. I hope we will. And I think Senator Conrad, our Democratic chairman, will submit a budget better than the President's budget. Surely it will be. I cannot imagine it will not be substantially better than the budget the President has submitted. But the question is, Will it be enough? They have already blamed Paul Ryan and the House Budget Committee as being Draconian, ideological, and unreasonable with their budget which would reduce spending $6.2 trillion in honest numbers that they have laid out and defended publicly, which actually confronts some of our long-term spending entitlement programs and tries to get them on a rate of growth not quite as high as it currently is. They are trying to bring this country into a financially sound position. I do not think the House budget probably goes far enough in the first 10 years to bring our debt under control, but it is an honest, respected document that every objective commentator has praised. Mr. Bowles himself said: If you disagree with Mr. Ryan's budget, at least it is honest, and you need to put your own out there with the same degree of honesty as he did. Mr. Bowles was President Clinton's Chief of Staff, the man chosen by President Obama to head his fiscal commission. This will be perhaps the most important budget in decades--maybe ever--because our debt situation is deep. It is not easy to get out of the fix we are in. A lot of it is driven by long-term commitments we have made that are unsustainable. We have to confront that honestly and find out how to deal with it in a way that is fair and just. They say: We cannot cut spending. We need more money for education, 10.5 percent. The State Department needs more money, 10.5 percent. The Energy Department needs more money, a 9.5-percent increase--this year they are proposing, commencing with the October 1, 2012, budget. That is the number the President has submitted. We do not have it. I ask some of the Members of this body to call Governor Cuomo in New York or Governor Christi in New Jersey or Governor Bentley in Alabama. He just announced he was having to reduce spending by 15 percent, prorate the spending for the rest of this fiscal year by 15 percent. I feel as though that is a message that has been lost in this body. I see my colleague Senator Klobuchar here. I wanted to share these remarks this morning. I believe the Vice President is meeting with some people--House and Senate Republicans and Democrats today. Maybe it will be budget No. 3, and maybe the Vice President can fix something. I hope they gave him the responsibility and the freedom to make a decision, or have they told him he cannot cut spending in any significant way? I don't know what they will tell the Vice President, but hopefully something will come out of that and maybe we can get on a better procedure. At this rate, at this point in our process, we are not in a good position. I am worried about it. Hopefully, we can reach some agreement. If not, we are going to fight it out on the floor of the Senate, of the House, and in conference committee. We are going to change the debt course of this Nation because the American people are going to demand it. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we as a country are in a very serious financial situation. We all know we have to reduce spending. This year we will spend $3.7 trillion but take in only $2.2 trillion--40 cents of every $1 is borrowed. The President has acknowledged a stunning revelation, that under his budget he submitted 2 months ago, something I repeatedly have talked about--in the 10th year, the amount of interest on our debt will be almost $1 trillion. This is fact. We are on an unsustainable course. As every witness to come before the Budget Committee has told us: You have to do better. You cannot continue in this fashion any longer. The President's debt commission Chairmen, Mr. Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson, told us we are facing the most predictable debt crisis in our history if we do not change. They did not say it could happen to our children and grandchildren, they said it could happen in 2 years. Mr. Bowles said maybe earlier than 2 years, maybe some time after that. Senator Simpson said, I think we can have a debt crisis in 1 year. Hopefully, this will not happen. But we have to get spending under control. There are two ways to do it. One is to work hard, do what we are paid to do as legislators and identify the less-productive, less-defensible spending programs and eliminate them and try to protect as much as we can the programs that are more productive and doing good for America. Another way to do it is reduce everything across the board and just cut it all by a certain percentage, and reduce spending that way. You could do either. I think most people would say, we should eliminate the programs that are least defensible first, before we have to reduce spending in programs that are more justified. So, regardless, how do we make the decision? I have heard the debate about Planned Parenthood and the money they get. I have not been particularly knowledgeable about it until recently. I serve as ranking member of the Budget Committee, so I know something about the debt crisis we are in. So the question is, Is Planned Parenthood a program that is less defensible and ought to have its funding eliminated or reduced significantly so other programs that are more defensible do not have to be cut? Looking at the facts, I find that Planned Parenthood has far more difficulty defending its legitimacy as a Federal recipient of millions of dollars than other institutions. This is a private group that sets about to do all kinds of things. One of the largest things it does is provide abortions. They have a very strong ideological agenda that a lot of the American people do not agree with. Why should we fund it? There are many other organizations out there, all over America, that do what they think to be good things and are not funded by the U.S. Government. So let's just look at it a little bit. I was sort of surprised actually. In 2009, the last year we have gotten a report, Planned Parenthood reported providing 332,278 abortions in the United States. I didn't know that--332,000. This is the highest total ever recorded, and the 15th consecutive year that the number of abortions they have provided has increased. Overall, though, abortions in the United States are going down. You see that sonogram and you see that unborn child and the American people are getting a lot more uneasy about this idea taking an unborn life. Overall, abortions have decreased by almost 25 percent in the past two decades nationwide, voluntarily reduced by individual decisions by Americans. Yet during that same time, Planned Parenthood abortions have doubled. Planned Parenthood consistently claims that abortions account for only 3 percent of their services; 97 percent is spent on other projects, they say. But yet in that same fact sheet on which they make that assertion, they state that 12 percent--that is more than in 1 in 10--of their health care patients receive an abortion. That is a surprise to me. Think about that. They state that 12 percent--that is more than the 1 in 10--of their health care patients who come in to Planned Parenthood receive an abortion. So what about the other solutions? Are there not other solutions to pregnancies other than abortion? In 2009, their report indicates that Planned Parenthood made 1 adoption referral for every 340 abortions performed. They made a scant 977 adoption referrals compared to over 330,000 abortions. That is a decline of almost 60 percent from 2008. In 2008, they did 60 percent more referrals when it made 2,400 adoption referrals. So this is a major change in what is going on at Planned Parenthood. It appears this is an advocacy organization that is committed to one solution for people struggling with pregnancies. I tell you, I have a letter here, I will not quote it, but I have a letter from a woman in Alabama who had an abortion who still feels pain about that and wrote me saying not to fund this. I just say that because my colleague suggested only men would favor reducing this funding. I tell you another thing that I did not know and was very surprised about: the amount of Federal money that they receive. No wonder there is a big brouhaha here, because this is a lot of money. Congress is providing $363 million a year to Planned Parenthood. That is a lot. Over 10 years--as we have been scoring everything here over a 10-year budget--that is $4 billion--quite a lot of money. Many people in the country feel strongly that, OK, they say the Supreme Court has ruled on this. They have said that under the Constitution abortions under some circumstances cannot be prohibited. But they are saying the Federal Government does not have to pay for it, does not have to fund it, and should not use taxpayer money to do so. So my colleagues say: Well, we agree with that principle and Planned Parenthood money does not directly fund abortions. We are giving the money to Planned Parenthood, but they are not able to use it for abortions. But if 12 percent of their patients are obtaining abortions, and they are getting $363 million per year, I think it is a fact that the Federal funding furthers their ability to grow and expand their lead as the No. 1 abortion provider in the country. I think, all in all, we do not have enough money to do a lot of good things. We have, some people forget, rural health clinics and urban health clinics that are funded and organized by the government to meet health needs of the poor. We do not have to use money to help fund this private entity that has an agenda. I do not believe it is radical to say this is one place we could save money. I do not think it is extreme. My best judgment tells me that if we do not have enough money, and 40 percent of what we spend is borrowed, we shouldn't borrow $363 million this year to fund a program like Planned Parenthood. This is one program that we could legitimately say does not have to have taxpayers' money and should have its funding terminated. I also would support the resolution concerning the health care bill. It is clearly a piece of legislation that costs the taxpayers large sums of money. It is not a piece of legislation that adds money to the Treasury, as has been suggested. The Congressional Budget Office has written a letter to me that stated explicitly that the administration is double-counting money to claim savings. If they were not double- counting the money they took from Medicare to fund this new program, then the health care bill would score to be a clear drain on the Treasury. They have to use a gimmick of double accounting to justify that. It is not the right way to do it and is the reason the country is going broke. So, while today's vote may largely be symbolic, it is a crucial step in showing the necessity of eliminating this intrusive and costly healthcare law and replacing it with reforms that will provide Americans with access to quality, affordable health care, reduce skyrocketing health care costs and put our Nation on a more sustainable fiscal path. The Democrats' health legislation was sold as a package that would reduce insurance premiums by $2,500 per family, trim the Federal deficit, and immediately create 400,000 new jobs. Sadly, none of these promises have been met. Instead, the new health care law will cause health care spending to surge over the next decade, and Americans will see dramatic increases in their premiums, and many of them already have. Half of those recently polled in a Kaiser Family Foundation poll claim that their premiums have gone up recently. The Federal deficit will increase by an additional $700 billion, and the law's expensive mandates, penalties, and tax hikes will lead to job losses and persistent economic uncertainty, as many small business owners have told me. As our Nation's reckless fiscal policy brings us ever closer to a tipping point, respected economists across the country have stressed the need for Congress to reduce Federal spending and contain our mounting health costs. Rather than tackle these problems that threaten the long-term stability of our Nation, the new health care law exacerbates our fiscal crisis by creating an open-ended entitlement and introducing $2.6 trillion in new Federal spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the new health care law will cause insurance premiums in the individual market to soar by 10 to 13 percent for American families, translating to a $2,100 increase for families purchasing their own health care coverage by 2016. Total health care spending in the U.S. already consumes 17.3 percent of GDP, the largest of any industrialized nation. Under the new law, national health care spending will approach 20 percent of GDP by the end of the decade. Sadly, many supporters of the health care law continue to perpetuate the myth that it will not increase the deficit. A thorough examination of the law pulls back the curtain to expose the deceptive budget gimmicks and reveal its true cost. When the bill was first introduced, the Democrats sold the plan to Americans by double-counting $398 billion in Medicare cuts and taxes, $29 billion in Social Security taxes, and $70 billion in new long-term care premiums to pay for the new health care spending. This is according to a CBO report I requested. This double accounting was stunning and existed to justify the claim that the law will reduce costs. Additionally, since CBO reports evaluate legislative proposals over a 10-year budget window, the new law was written to delay most of the new spending until 2014, while immediately implementing the program cuts and tax increases to allow 10 years of offsets to pay for only 6 years of spending. In order to convince Americans of the plan's merits, which they failed to do, they had to use accounting gimmicks that hide the true long-term costs of this monstrous law. Only in Washington will people claim that spending $2.6 trillion and dramatically expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government is good for our Nation's fiscal health. Former Director of the Congressional Budget Office Douglas Holz- Eakin, an economist who understands the budget gimmicks used in Washington, cowrote an article in the Wall Street Journal in January that eliminates any confusion about the law's impact. This article titled ``Health Care Repeal Won't Add to the Deficit'' clearly refutes the law's supporters: Repeal is the logical first step toward restoring fiscal sanity. . . . How, then, does the Affordable Care Act magically convert $1 trillion in new spending into painless deficit reduction? It's all about budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting, and implausible assumptions used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline . . . Repeal isn't a budget buster; keeping the Affordable Care Act is. A poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University conducted around the same time that this article was written revealed that the American people are seeing through these ploys: 60 percent of the country believes the health care law will increase the deficit over the next 10 years, while only 11 percent thinks it will lower the deficit. Once again, the America people prove that they are wiser than Washington. The final point I wish to make about the health care law is its debilitating impact on jobs and our economic recovery. In meeting with many small businesses, they are passionate on this point. The expensive mandates and penalties included in the health care law coupled with the rising costs of insurance facing families and businesses have enveloped our economy in a cloud of uncertainty. Already, over 6,000 pages of new health care regulations have been written by the Obama administration, burdening employers of all sizes as they make strategic decisions about business expansion, hiring additional employees, and long-term investments, three keys to the private sector recovery essential to getting Americans back to work. Economic estimates indicate that repealing the health care law that threatens our economic recovery would save 700,000 American jobs. It is imperative that Congress repeal this law that is burdening employers and stifling economic growth, and replace it with solutions that will lower health costs and avert the mounting fiscal crisis facing our Republic. During the recent election, the American public rebelled against the unchecked spending and unprecedented government expansion that threaten our children's future. Their message to Congress was clear: adopt policies to change our unsustainable trajectory and rein in the cost and size of the government. Congressman Paul Ryan has submitted a budget for 2012 that is responsible, honest, and straightforward in the way that it deals with the debt problem facing our children and grandchildren. Repealing this flawed and fiscally unsustainable health care law, which is an important part of his plan, would be another step in the right direction and would help to change the devastating trajectory that we are on. I urge my colleagues to heed the public's call and repeal this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to say goodbye to one of the most trusted members of my staff, my chief counsel on the Judiciary Committee, Matt Miner. Matt is leaving to join the prestigious law firm of White and Case, where he will be a partner in the Global White Collar Practice Group. Matt has been with me since 2008, and I have always been able to rely on his steady, informed judgment, his discretion, and his indispensable expertise that came from years of practicing law both as an assistant U.S. attorney in Montgomery, AL, and in private practice. Before joining my staff, Matt served as counsel to chairman Norm Coleman on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and as chief counsel for crime, terrorism and oversight for former chairman and ranking member Arlen Specter on the Judiciary Committee. Matt has ably served on my staff for the last 3 years, but his time as Republican staff director of the full Judiciary Committee during the end of the 111th Congress was especially noteworthy. Matt led the committee during that difficult time, when many last-ditch efforts were made to move flawed legislation to the finish line. As a former assistant U.S. attorney, Matt is widely known and respected by Members and staff on both sides of the aisle for his expertise and judgment in the areas of criminal law and sentencing. Matt was the principal Senate Republican staffer for the Adam Walsh Act of 2006, landmark legislation that laid the groundwork for a national, interstate sex offender registry and which imposed tough new penalties and expanded offenses that cracked down on sex trafficking of minors, child pornography, and various sexual assault offenses. Matt also was the key staffer for the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which appropriately modified penalties for crack cocaine offenses. His knowledge and judgment were key to negotiating a bill that moderated these penalties while ensuring sufficient deterrence for dealers and traffickers. Matt is also highly regarded for his expertise on national security issues and was an invaluable resource not only to me but to other Members and their staffs during critical debates on the PATRIOT Act, media shield, and state secrets. And during my time as ranking member, Matt helped to manage two Supreme Court confirmations and numerous high-level Justice Department confirmations. Importantly, Matt has always taken the time to be a mentor to several junior lawyers and staff on the Judiciary Committee, talking with them about opportunities and careers and teaching them how to be effective lawyers. I know the junior lawyers on the committee very much appreciate that guidance. A Senator is blessed indeed if he has top staff people of outstanding ability and dedication, but it is a special blessing if the staff person can be depended on to properly reflect and advance the Senator's highest and best values. Matt has my trust and confidence. When he summarizes a complex issue, I know he has intelligently considered it and has fairly reported the pros and cons. Such an ability is rare, and it has been exceedingly valuable to me. Matt has served his country well, advanced the rule of law, and been a tremendous asset to me as I seek to fulfill my duty to the people of this country. I am happy for him in this new position and wish him Godspeed.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, as ranking member of the Budget Committee, I am concerned about where we are as a nation, as we struggle to get our house in order. The chairman and cochairman of the Debt Commission, Erskine Bowles, Senator Alan Simpson, have told us we are facing the most predictable financial crisis in our Nation's history. When asked when we could have a financial crisis, we are talking about another recession, a double dip, or maybe worse, maybe a worldwide cataclysm from excessive debt--hopefully not--but that is what they told us we are facing, the most predictable crisis in history. We have gone 714 days in this Congress without passing a budget as we are required to do. The Budget Act requires Congress to pass a budget by April 15, and we have not achieved that. That is particularly problematic at a time of national crisis. I see my colleague Senator Corker from Tennessee here, who has worked very hard with some constructive bipartisan efforts to do something about the debt trajectory we are on. But I guess I want to first ask him, as a highly successful mayor of Chattanooga, received great plaudits around the country and within the State for his leadership, he had to deal with real numbers, real expenditures, and real budgets. As a very successful businessman, he has had the same challenge. So I guess I would ask him for his perspective, having been in the Senate now several years, what he thinks if we as a corporation, a mayor, or a nation, facing the most severe debt crisis perhaps in its history, that we have not had a budget and do not have a plan. I guess my first question, Senator Corker is, how, from a businessman, a former mayor who had to run a city and balance your budget, what is your perspective?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator for his work. I think the legislative statutory cap on spending is something I have worked with Senator McCaskill on, you have worked with her on, and has potential to help us deal with the crisis we are in. I will agree with the Senator, and I truly feel the American people have a right to be angry with Congress, because Congress has run up the largest deficits in history. We are on a trajectory that every witness we have had before the Budget Committee, and some fabulous witnesses outside of the government, all say it is an unsustainable path that places our Nation at risk. We have no real plan to deal with it. We should never have been in such a deep hole. So I think people have a right to be upset with us. Senator Isakson, I know, is one of Georgia's most successful and effective businessmen. He has been involved in running the Education Department in the State of Georgia. I guess I would ask the Senator as a businessman, and as an American citizen, how do you feel about where we are? Do you think we are in a serious crisis that requires us to alter our business-as-usual approach, do we have to take tough decisions, or is it something we sort of hold off and maybe things will get better in the future?

Mr. SESSIONS. I couldn't agree more. I have been a long supporter of the biennial 2-year budget. I do believe it can work. It has a large amount of bipartisan support in the Congress. It can help us. I see Senators Blunt and Barrasso. I believe Senator Blunt was here first. He has been involved in the leadership of the House of Representatives for many years. He is already showing himself to be a very wise and valuable contributor to our debate. First, I would like to ask him, does he think the American people have a right to be unhappy with their leadership when they wake up and find that we have had $1 trillion deficits for 3 years in a row and will virtually average a $1 trillion deficit for the next 10 years and there is no plan in the Senate except the President's budget that he submitted to us, that has the deficits increasing in years 7, 8, 9, 10 to $1.2 trillion in the tenth year? Is this an unsustainable path? Don't the American people have a right to be upset with us and demand that we stop business as usual?

Mr. SESSIONS. I am not aware of it. We are now 715 days without a budget. This is particularly problematic since we are facing such an acknowledged debt crisis. The Secretary of the Treasury Geithner came before the Budget Committee. I asked him a number of questions. I asked him about the Rogoff and Reinhart study that says when our debt reaches over 90 percent of our economy, 90 percent of GDP, it causes the economy to slow down, be dragged down by that debt 1 percent of GDP. So if it was going to increase it 3 percent, it would increase it 2; and this amounts to, another study says, 1 million jobs. One percent of GDP growth is 1 million new jobs added. So it is very serious. I asked him was that true. By the way, I think my colleagues are aware that we are past 95 percent of GDP today. We are over the 90 percent mark, and by September 30, we are projected to be 100 percent. So we are well above the number. The true number is not the public debt but the gross debt, and the gross debt would be 100 percent by the end of September. Mr. Geithner said, yes, he agrees with the study that shows it pulls down the growth, and added: It is in many ways more serious than that because it could lead to a debt crisis, the kind of thing Erskine Bowles, the President's choice to head the debt commission, has warned could happen. We have a responsibility to lead the Nation that avoids us undertaking a crisis that we can see coming. We have a clear and present danger to the American Republic, this debt. Mr. Bowles, a businessman, President Clinton's Chief of Staff, the choice to head the debt commission by President Obama, told us we are facing the most predictable debt crisis in our history, and it could happen within 2 years. I think this is really serious. We have to change business. I think the momentum from the American people in this past election was basically a statement saying, we don't know what the problem is; it is all convoluted. But I believe as the Senator indicated at the beginning, the American people have a right to say: Get it together and fix this problem.

Mr. SESSIONS. It is a very serious crisis. The President submitted a budget to the Congress 2 months ago. I am hoping and expect that if he makes big changes in his plan for the future, we will see that in real numbers and not just a vague vision. A vision gets too close to being a dream. It gets too close to being of vapors. We are in a real situation with real money. I have been a very aggressive critic of the President's budget. I believe it is the most irresponsible budget ever presented to Congress. We are facing a systemic, deep, long-term crisis. Everybody knows it. His budget raised taxes $1.7 trillion. His spending was even more. In the net projection over 10 years, he would increase the debt of America $3 trillion more than the current trend we are on. Instead of taking us off the trend, it accelerates the trend. It was a stunning development. For example, at a time when inflation is 2 percent or so--according to the experts, at least, low inflation--he is proposing in his budget that the State Department have a 10.5-percent increase, an 11-percent increase for education, a 9.5-percent increase for the Energy Department, and a 60-percent increase in the Transportation Department to fund high-speed rail with no money to back that up. It is stunning to me that we could have those kinds of increases proposed in a formal written document--four volumes--that the President is required to submit that I have on my desk back in the office. And he makes no projections in that document to change any of the unsustainable problems we have with Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid--zero reform. I understand he may talk about that this afternoon. I hope he will. But I believe he should go further--if he is going to propose changes-- in that we need a new budget. We need to see what the numbers are. That is what Congressman Ryan and the House Republican Budget Committee have done. They have produced a real budget that can be analyzed and scored, as we call it, by the Congressional Budget Office. If he is going to make changes in his plans for the future, I truly believe the President should talk more than about vision and dreams for the future but give us real numbers. Senator Barrasso, an orthopedic surgeon, has served in the legislature in Wyoming and has been a tremendous advocate on many issues, none more important than the health care debate we had. I say to Senator Barrasso, as someone who has not been too long in Washington and has already been elected to the leadership in the Republican Party--well deserved as a result of your proven acts--how do you feel we are handling the American people's money? What thoughts does the Senator have? (Mr. FRANKEN assumed the chair.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, did you do that?

Mr. SESSIONS. I agree with the Senator, that is common sense. Alabama Governor Dr. Bentley, a fine physician, announced that we are going to have to cut through the rest of the year in the discretionary spending 15 percent because we have a constitutional amendment that says the budget has to be balanced. Of course, we do not have that in Washington. But what would the Senator say if someone--the American people--asked you: Well, Senator, I hear the President is proposing an 11-percent increase in education, a 10-percent increase in the Energy Department, a 10-percent increase in the State Department, $60 billion for the Transportation Department, at a time when we are going broke and spending money the likes of which we ought never to have spent before? How would the people in Wyoming react to that?

Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is right. We are talking about, is this a huge reversal from what we got just 2 months ago because it did not address Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security that now we hear he might be addressing. The Senator mentioned the debt commission. They spent most of the last year studying and hearing experts, becoming exceedingly concerned about the future. Mr. Erskine Bowles, who was chosen by President Obama to head that commission, when he first saw the President's budget, said: It is nowhere near what is necessary to avoid a fiscal nightmare. This is really serious. The budget the President submitted here was rejected by his own Chairman, saying: It is nowhere near what is necessary to avoid a fiscal nightmare. Since then, he has followed up to say: This is the most predictable crisis the Nation has ever faced. He said: Not just for our grandchildren, it could impact us now. So I ask the Senator: Don't you think, if the President is going to make a speech and announce a change in his policy, he should--as the House budget people have done--submit a budget to the Congress that can be analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office, scored, and we can actually use it as part of the discussion about how to bring debt under control?

Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely. I just have to say, let's be frank about it. We had one budget submitted to both Houses of Congress from the President just 2 months ago, and it was very irresponsible and has gotten no support that I can see anywhere. But the House is on track, it looks like, to pass a budget this week that will be forward-looking and substantive and alter the debt trajectory we are on, put us on a path to prosperity, because the biggest and really, to me, only real threat to our economic vitality and our ability to bounce back from this recession is the debt we are carrying. But I have to acknowledge the Senator's former colleague, Senator Simpson, and Erskine Bowles said this about Paul Ryan's proposed budget in the House: that it is ``a serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our nation's enormous fiscal challenges''--our ``enormous fiscal challenges.'' All right. They go on to say this, and I think it is relevant, as the Senator suggested, to the President's speech this afternoon. They go on to say: Going forward, anyone who issues an alternative plan to Chairman Ryan's should be held to the same standard when offering their own solutions. We simply cannot back away from these issues. I know that is a firm, strong statement. I know it is probably different from what we are going to hear from the President, which is ``speech'' and ``vision'' and ``hopes.'' But doesn't the Senator think we do have a right? Aren't they correct--this bipartisan commission, appointed by the President--aren't these leaders correct to say: We expect you, Mr. President, to fulfill your statutory duty to submit a real budget, and if you have changed it from the one you submitted earlier, submit us a new budget.

Mr. SESSIONS. I think the American people get it. I think the American people understand that the driving issue of our time is the debt that threatens every good and hopeful wish we have for the future of our country. Senator Coats, who is one of our finest Members of the Senate--he left us, served as Ambassador to Germany, spent a number of years in Europe, and then came back and has been reelected. Let me ask him, fundamentally, this question. Pete Domenici--you served with Pete--served with a Democratic wise lady, Alice Rivlin, on another debt commission. He testified before the Budget Committee recently: I have never feared more for my country. That was a deep, personal statement from Pete Domenici, who chaired the Budget Committee in the Senate previously. I ask the Senator, what are you hearing from your constituents, and what is your belief at this time in history about the dangers we face?

Mr. SESSIONS. Really?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana. I guess I have been critical of the President. Many people say it is political. I feel as though any President should look the American people in the eye at this point in history. I called on him before the State of the Union Address, over 2 months ago now, that he should tell the American people we are in this financial crisis, and that--the reason we are talking about reducing spending is because we have no choice. We can't spend $3.7 trillion and take in $2.2 trillion. We cannot sustain the debt course we are on, as every witness, Republican and Democratic, has told us. But I do believe it is a responsibility for the President of the United States, who can see this clear and present danger to our future, to at least join in and say we have to do something about it. He didn't do that at the State of the Union. He hasn't done it since. So maybe today that will be a big change, if we get that. I do believe the Senator from Indiana is exactly right. He has the responsibility under the Budget Act to send us a responsible budget that changes what we are doing and puts us on the right track. If he wants to do it all by even more tax increases than he submitted already, which was $1.7 trillion in his budget proposal, so be it. Put it out there. Let's talk about it. But don't deny we are in a crisis. Senator Isakson understands finance better than anybody in this Senate. He lived through and provided leadership during the huge financial crisis. It looks as though we have moved debt from the private sector to the sovereign government sector, and that is why we are being warned we could have a similar type crisis, which is what I understand Secretary Geithner to have meant and Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson to have meant. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his leadership. I know he wants nothing more than what is best for America. I would be glad to have the Senator share his thoughts at this time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator one more question. Let's take the Ryan budget. I think it is far more realistic. It is the one that is, as was referred to by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, a serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our Nation's enormous fiscal challenges. It is long term. It deals with Medicare, Social Security, discretionary spending. I am optimistic about the future. If we were to put ourselves on that course and send the word to the American people, the American business community, the world financial community that we have gotten our house in order, is that the kind of budget that could unleash growth that we haven't seen in years now?