Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I think the most important thing--and I don't want to be too negative--is to tell the American people the truth that every expert we have asked has said you could have a crisis sooner than you think. We should avoid that. Congress and the President should acknowledge it and say that we understand it and we are going to take steps to avoid it. But I have a sense that the United States is still a productive nation. The Senator from Georgia is attuned to the business community in Atlanta. They are still willing to work hard and invest and take risks to be more productive and create jobs. But this confidence the Senator mentioned-- if we restore that confidence, is the Senator optimistic we can bounce back?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, our country requires us to stand and be counted. ``Nothing comes from nothing,'' as Julie Andrews sang in that wonderful song. Things have to be paid for. When you borrow money, you pay interest on it. Interest under the budget the President has sent to us last year was $200 billion--$207 billion, I think. In the 10th year, that budget, as scored by the CBO, is imposing on the American economy a $940 billion, 1-year interest payment. I know the Senator is familiar with Georgia. Alabama's general fund is less than $2 billion. Our education budget is less than $8 billion. We are talking about imposing on the American people an annual interest payment of $940 billion. The Federal highway fund is $40 billion, and Federal aid to education is $70 billion. This is going to crowd out everything. That is why we are on an unsustainable path. We need the President to engage, and I hope today he will initiate his engagement, in which he tells the American people we can't continue this way. Would the Senator care to close it out?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak until 11--I think that is the agreed upon time--and that I be notified 5 minutes before 11.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the American people have high expectations of their leaders. They should have, and they should demand it. One of the basic expectations we should have for our President is that he would be honest and forthright in discussing the critical issues facing our Nation. He should engage in the Nation's most important debates and provide leadership and take all appropriate steps to protect our Nation when we face a clear and present danger. Clearly, the dominant issue of our time--I think there is no dispute within this Chamber--is our fiscal path, the debt course we are on, and the fact that we want to see our country be prosperous and grow, create more jobs, not lose jobs. To do that, we have to confront the large, soaring debt we have. It dwarfs all other issues. The American people know it. They gave a shellacking to the big spenders in the last election. It is what I hear whenever I am at home and what my mail and e-mails and phone calls say. People are worried about the future of our country economically, and they are exactly right. The people who are not right are those who say change is not necessary--people who are in denial, including Government agencies and departments. People who receive governmental grants and programs think that nothing has changed in their own minds, but things have changed. I wish it weren't so, but it is so. The Congressional Budget Act requires that Congress pass a budget every year by April 15. That is this Friday. A few weeks ago, the Congress received from the White House the most irresponsible budget ever submitted by a President to the Congress and to the Nation because it did nothing to confront the problems we face. It made no recommendations about entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--zero. It increased discretionary spending, increased taxes by $1.7 trillion, and, according to the Congressional Budget Office that analyzed the President's budget, it increases the debt, when it is all over, more than the debt would have been increased if we hadn't had a budget from the President, even with $1.7 trillion in new taxes. That is why it was irresponsible. It did not confront the issues we so seriously face today. He said when he announced it, that his budget would cause us to live within our means, that it would not increase the debt, and that we are not going to spend any more money than we are taking in. All fact-check organizations have found that to be false. It is plainly false. The lowest single year in which we have a deficit-- and we have a deficit every year under the present budget--is $740 billion, and it is increasing in the 10th year to $1.2 trillion. The horrible deficit President Bush had was $450 billion. The lowest President Obama projects in 10 years is $750 billion, and it is going up in the outyears to $1.2 trillion. In contrast, the House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, has made the most serious attempt maybe in history to deal with the systemic threats our country faces to tackle our long-term fiscal challenges. The Bowles and Simpson debt commission cochairmen appointed by President Obama described Paul Ryan's budget this way: ``A serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our Nation's enormous fiscal challenges.'' They went 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 solutions. We simply cannot back away from these issues. Rather than defend the President's budget or offer alternatives, what we have been seeing in this Chamber are just attacks on Congressman Ryan and attacks on anybody who says change has to occur. They act as though nothing has to change. Many remain in denial. Our Democratic chairman, Senator Conrad, who said so many good things about the need to challenge the status quo and make changes to put our country on the right path, said: Representative Ryan's proposal is partisan and ideological. He provides dramatic tax cuts for the wealthiest, financed by Draconian reductions in Medicare and Medicaid. His proposals are unreasonable and unsustainable. Is this going to be the nature of our discussion? I thought we were supposed to be trying to reach a bipartisan understanding of the challenges facing us and do something about it. We saw what the President's own debt commission cochairmen said, respectfully, of the Ryan proposal, and this is what our leadership said. Others have called it extreme. They say it is driven by these evil tea party people who don't know anything. They know something. They know the government is spending us into virtual bankruptcy and that Congress has failed in its basic responsibilities to protect the Nation from economic danger. The American people are right. I called on the President, before the State of the Union Message, to enter into a dialog with the American people, to look them in the eye and explain why we are in trouble, why we have to change. Who wants to go and propose any reduction in any spending?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Presiding Officer. Who wants to do that? We are in a position where we have to make those kinds of tough choices, just as our counties, our cities, our mayors, and our State Governors are making every day. So now we are told the President is going to give a speech. He hasn't yet even discussed the danger we face. We are told the President is planning this major speech to discuss our long-term fiscal problem. I would say, first of all, it has to be considered a dramatic admission that his previous claims that his budget calls on us to live within our means, to pay down the debt and not add to the debt, were false. They say the President will support some of the recommendations in the fiscal commission, his own Commission, Bowles and Simpson. I hope that is true. But I just wish to say this: At this point in history, with the budget supposed to be passed in the Senate Friday and we haven't even had a markup to have a hearing on a budget; we have not seen one, other than the President's previous budget, which is so utterly irresponsible, I think he owes more than a speech. We hear a lot of speeches in this country, a lot from the President. What we need are numbers. What he needs to do is submit a new budget. If he is going to change his projections for the future and is going to propose alterations in our entitlement programs, let's see the numbers. He has around 500 people in the Office of Management and Budget. So if this is serious, let's have a serious proposal. The House has done it. The Republican House has a budget. They are going to move that budget. I suspect we will have that budget passed in the House by Friday. It has real numbers, real integrity, real change. It puts us on a path to prosperity, not debt and decline. The American people know this is serious. They know we are in a dangerous time. All we have to do is rise and make some tough choices, as mayors and Governors and families are making around their kitchen table every day. When we get through this exercise, we are not going to find that the government sank into the ocean because we reduced agencies 15, 20, 25 percent. The President needs to lay out concrete, specific details about how he intends to solve these challenges we face--not a general speech. The House and Senate Budget Committees must be able to review what he proposes as the Budget Act presumes, in real numbers. The Congressional Budget Office needs to be able to analyze it and see how it will actually play out in terms of dollars. In 1996, President Clinton produced four budgets. The shutdown occurred during that time and they had a big fight during that time. But we know what happened 3 years later. The budget was balanced. Yes, it was a messy fight, and people made a lot of mistakes, but the end result was the American people said: You are spending too much. Congress rose and said: We are not going to keep doing this, and they balanced the budget. We are in a deeper hole today. It is going to be a lot harder, but it can be done again if we meet the challenges. So questions that must be answered by the President and the new budget are some of these: The fiscal commission recommends $1.3 trillion less in discretionary spending than proposed in the President's budget. How does the President plan to alter his budget to achieve those savings? The fiscal commission recommends finding $600 billion in entitlement savings, but the President's budget would increase entitlement spending by $905 billion. That is in the budget he submitted already. How does he intend to achieve these savings in entitlements? The fiscal commission's recommendations would reduce it by $4 trillion, and the Ryan budget plan would reduce it by $5 trillion; but the President's budget would increase the debt by $10 trillion and would not produce any savings. How would the President alter his original budget to reduce the debt by $4 trillion? I wish to see something more than a speech. Give me a break. I wish to see some numbers so we can discuss it. Once the President engages, we can have that long overdue national dialog about solving the Nation's fiscal problems. But he has to acknowledge that we have one. As every witness has told us--and the debt commission chairmen, Simpson and Bowles, said this Nation has never faced a more predictable fiscal financial crisis. They see it coming. We have to change. I hope in his speech the President will discuss entitlements, discuss whether it is good to burden American energy companies with new taxes, discuss whether we should tax small businesses even more, and discuss the military budget. I think a leading President should talk about that. Rather than trying to drain every cent of tax revenue from the American people, Washington should try to drain every cent of waste from the Federal budget. I hope this doesn't continue the pattern of retreat that is already emerging, where the President supports deficit reduction in theory but resists it in practice, and he claims credit when he is forced to accept reduction. For a President to abdicate his responsibility to lead the effort to meet one of the greatest challenges in our Nation's history would be tantamount to a general leaving the battlefield in a time of war. I hope we have a speech. I hope it is backed up with real numbers, and I hope and pray it represents a recognition by the President of the United States that we have a serious fiscal challenge before us. Business as usual cannot continue. Change is necessary. I hope he intends to participate in that and help lead the good change that is necessary. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if the differences are meaningless maybe our Democratic colleague would agree and we would have an agreement if it is so insignificant. But it is not totally insignificant. If you take $61 billion in spending down from the baseline as the House legislation that they have passed and sent here does, it reduces spending by $61 billion. If you do that, it reduces the baseline $61 billion. My staff on the Budget Committee has calculated that would save $860 billion over 10 years. Those numbers have not been disputed. In fact, it does make a difference. We are on the wrong trajectory. We need to get on the right trajectory. Our Democratic colleagues, it seems, have to be dragged, kicking and screaming out of denial and into the reality that we are spending too much. We are running up too much debt. I am pleased to see they have agreed to consider these proposals and have passed a couple of continuing resolutions to fund the government at a slightly lower level. That is progress. We have avoided shutdowns to this date. Hopefully we can avoid another one. But if we have another short-term agreement today, it is nowhere close to what is needed to put our country on a sound financial course. We have been warned we are facing another recessions if we do not change. That is what we have got to do. This spasm has come about because our Democratic colleagues' failed to pass a budget last year. They did not even bring a budget to the floor. They passed not a single appropriations bill last year on the floor of the Senate and still have not brought to the floor any legislation to even begin to form a budget for this year and to propose any funding for the last 6 months of this fiscal year. We haven't seen legislation about that. They want to meet in secret and talk and negotiate. The House has passed legislation that funds the government, that funds the military through the end of the year, reduces $61 billion. They have also sent legislation over that says: OK, we will do 1 more week with a small reduction of $12 billion, and we will fund the military. And let's do that if you don't want to agree to the full agreement for the rest of the year. The lack of action is only in one Chamber; that is, this Chamber. Has the Senate proposed any new legislation? No. I am saying this really not quite as critically as it probably sounds; our colleagues just have not comprehended the plain fact that business as usual is over. They think this country can continue to spend the way we have been doing. They think these huge deficits can be funded out of thin air without consequence, that we can borrow unlimited amounts--$1.6 trillion to fund the government this year, borrow that without consequence. They think the American people will not support and will defeat Members of Congress who tell the truth about the condition we are in and who have the gumption to take real steps to reduce spending. They think it is inconceivable that our government spending levels can actually be reduced. They think if they plan a 3-percent increase in spending and it gets increased only 1 percent, the government has suffered a 2- percent cut. That is the way they talk about it. That is why we are broke, that kind of accounting. They think the government can create money, create wealth out of nothing. We can just pass a law, and it becomes so. They ignore the fact that debts must be paid and interest on our debt has to be paid. Expert after expert has told the Congress, has written papers and articles and op-eds, that we are on an unsustainable path. There is not one expert I know of who would deny that the budget submitted to the Congress just a few weeks ago by the President is sound. Indeed, President Obama's choice to head the debt commission, Erskine Bowles, when the budget was first announced, said it is nowhere close to what is needed to avoid our fiscal nightmare. This is a man he appointed to head the debt commission who has spent weeks and months taking testimony about the financial condition of America, the man he asked to sum up the kind of problem we have and how to get out of it. The American people understand it. They have been shocked by the irresponsibility shown by Congress. They have been shocked by what we have been doing. Four years ago, our deficit was $162 billion. It jumped to 450. Then the next year it was $1.3 trillion; the next year, $1.2 trillion. The next year, this year, on September 30, it is projected to be $1.5 or $1.6 trillion. We are on a completely unsustainable course. President Obama's budget, as scored by the CBO, shows that in the 10th year the projected deficit would be $1.2 trillion. This year, we take in $2.2 trillion and we spend $3.7 trillion. Forty percent of what we are spending this year is borrowed. That is why this is an unsustainable course. There is no other alternative than to acknowledge that. The American people have sent letters, e-mails, telegrams, phone calls, attended town meetings, had conferences to try to save this country we love from the fiscal nightmare Chairman Bowles said awaits us if we don't take real action. Is there something wrong with that? Should they not be upset with Congress going down a path without any attempt to get off it, with the most reckless debts we have ever seen in the history of America and with no end in sight? These concerned Americans, many of whom have not been active politically before, did one more thing: They went to the polls and voted. They voted for new candidates they felt would take the action necessary to protect America from financial disaster and to defend the bedrock of our legal system--the Constitution. The result was a colossal and historic shellacking from the big spenders. Those who said: Things are fine. We in Washington will take care of you. Don't question us. We will pass a Federal takeover of health care. I know you don't want it, but we know better. Isn't that what they said? We are progressives. We are smart. We are educated, more than you. We know deficits don't really matter. Countries have deficits all the time. While you don't understand, we know we have to bail out these bankers and these financiers, these Wall Street big shots, because principles of responsibility and accountability don't really apply because we know better. We are smarter. Your old principles are fuddy- duddy. Following the rules is not important. Rules don't have fixed meanings. The Constitution doesn't really apply. It is old. It is out of date. Just leave us alone with your money and the power to borrow, and we will take care of you. Trust us. That didn't sit well with the American people this last election. They sent a message, in my opinion, that was crystal clear. So should anybody be surprised, should there be any surprise that 64 new Members of Congress who had run and won elections promising to do something about reckless spending didn't rubberstamp the Senate and the President's proposal to fund increased funding for the rest of the fiscal year, that they insisted that reductions occur and sent over a $61 billion reduction, which, out of a $3,700 billion budget, is not much, about 1 percent? States are reducing spending far more than that. We have a choice, don't we? What is the choice? Business as usual or taking the tough steps like Governors, mayors, counties commissioners, and families are making this very moment. Our Governor in Alabama announced a 15-percent reduction in spending.

Mr. SESSIONS. This $61 billion doesn't come close to that. It is 1 or 2 percent of total government spending. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will share a few thoughts, and if any of my colleagues come to the floor, I would be pleased to yield to them. I indicated earlier, pretty firmly, that I thought our Democratic colleagues did not recognize the severity of the crisis we are facing and were unwilling to confront the reality that we have to change what we are doing. We do not have the money. When you are spending $3.7 trillion and taking in $2.2 trillion and there is no real prospect of any alteration of that trajectory, something has to change, just like everybody in the States are doing. But one of the things that is galling to me is that not only are they resisting taking any action to change the trajectory in any significant way, they are going about to savage, criticize good and decent people who are calling for change, people who pay their salaries. They are labeling the millions of Americans who took to the streets during the last election, went door to door, or had town meetings or rallies or protests, who wrote letters to Congress, wrote letters to the newspaper, called in to radio programs and said, We don't like what is going on in Washington--they are labeling those people who participated, many of them in politics for the first time in their lives because they were worried about America, as extremists, radicals, blind ideologues, basically with no common sense. I don't think that is accurate. I don't think that is fair. I think every expert we have had testify before the Budget Committee has said the same thing: You are spending this country into oblivion. Mr. President, you need to submit a budget that gets us off this path. It needs short-term spending reductions and long-term plans to deal with the surging instability in our large entitlement programs. You need to get busy now, and if you don't get busy now, things will be worse. Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve said to the Budget Committee, regarding the debts over 10 years from now: Don't worry, it is not going to get there, because you are going to have a debt crisis before you get there, and you are going to have to make changes in the midst of a financial crisis--the worst possible time to make those choices. These men and women who expressed their concerns about America are good people. They have been using the phrase I thought was interesting, that Pete Domenici, the former Senator from New Mexico and former chairman of the Budget Committee said: ``I have never been more afraid for my country.'' I have never been more afraid for my country. That is the heart and soul of the people who stood up in this last election who are concerned about their country. It is the establishment--the go- along, the no-change, the people in denial, we can't cut spending, it will never work, no matter what we do it won't make any difference. I thank the Chair. I see my colleagues here. I will be pleased to yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the good works of a member of my staff who is leaving. Michael Chahinian has served with the Alabama congressional delegation for over 7 years. The first 5 were with Congressman Aderholt, and the past 2 have been on my staff. Michael graduated from Cornell University several years ago with a degree in government and East Asian studies. While at Cornell he learned how to speak Mandarin Chinese. While on my staff, he learned to speak Southern English. During his time on Capitol Hill he enrolled in the Naval War College's master's degree program. Michael graduated last year a with master's in national security and strategic studies with highest distinction. His master's program helped revive a childhood dream to become a naval officer. After making application to enter Officer Candidate School, Michael learned late last year he was accepted and will report for duty in a few weeks. Michael has worked hard on banking, finance, small business and commerce issues while a member of my staff. Most recently he was instrumental in working on the details and negotiations over our Sessions-McCaskill amendment, which would have imposed multiyear spending caps on the Federal budget. The amendment was carefully crafted to get maximum bipartisan support, and with 59 votes, it received more support than any serious budget reform in the past decade. Michael has also been instrumental on my behalf in supporting domestic manufacturing through his active role working on trade policy in my office. While on my staff, he has helped the domestic sleeping bag industry deal with unfair competition from a loophole in one of our trade laws, known as GSP. On Congressman Aderholt's staff, he became known for his good work on behalf of the local sock industry, dominant in the northeastern part of our State. In each of these situations, Michael demonstrated hard work and a dogged tenacity. Though we hate to lose him, I am confident our loss will be the Navy's gain. I 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, I understand our Democratic leader is meeting with the Republican Speaker of the House and the White House and working to try to establish the funding level we will have for the rest of this fiscal year that ends September 30. Let me explain, briefly, how we got here. Our Democratic majority in the Senate failed to pass a spending level last year--failed to pass a single appropriations bill last year and, at the start of the fiscal year, voted a continuing resolution for 5 months. In the course of all that, there was a national election and the most driving force in that election was the American people's deep concern about reckless Washington spending and surging debt that they know is endangering the American economy, can reduce growth, cause a debt crisis and put us on an unsustainable path and burden our children and grandchildren with massive debt, the likes of which we have not seen before. The continuing resolution that passed at the start of the fiscal year carried us 5 months of the 12-month fiscal year. I suppose, after the shellacking the big spenders took last fall--the biggest shellacking in 80 years--huge numbers of individuals got elected to the House and a large number to the Senate who are committed to containing spending-- there should have been no doubt that when we came to decide how much spending we would have the last 7 months of the fiscal year, that there would be proposals to reduce spending. The House responsibly came forward with H.R. 1, which calls for a reduction of spending by $61 billion over the last 7 months of the fiscal year, and it was sent to the Senate. The Senate has done nothing. We have a vote on the bill. Actually, more votes were obtained in the Democratic-controlled Senate for the Republican House bill than votes achieved for the Senate Democratic bill. Ten Democratic Senators were uneasy with the bill the Senate majority produced because it only reduced spending by $4.6 billion. Have they forgotten what happened in November? Have they forgotten that projections continue to grow throughout the year, and instead of a $1.3 trillion expected deficit this year, the numbers have grown to $1.4 trillion in debt added to our country this fiscal year ending September 30? Did not the American people expect us to do something? One would have thought this $61 billion reduction is somehow the end of the world. We have been fighting ever since. We have had a series of short-term continuing resolutions so the government does not shut down. Why should the government shut down? Because under our Constitution, if the Congress does not fund a government entity, the entity does not have a right to exist. It can't go out and operate as a government entity if it has not been funded by the Congress. So we have a serious problem. I hope our colleagues reach an agreement. I hope Senator Reid and Speaker Boehner can reach an agreement, but I am uneasy about it. Frankly, I am not happy about some of the things that have been occurring. Let me read for my colleagues what Senator Reid, our Democratic leader, has been saying. You know we want to have a compromise, they say. Why don't you guys all get together and be nice to one another? Well, we should, and we do, even though we sometimes are pretty aggressive in our debates. But it is a bit much when Senator Reid says the tea party is trying to push through its extreme agenda--issues that have absolutely nothing to do with funding the government. He goes on to say: They have made a decision to shut down the government because they want to make it harder, for example, for a woman to get a cancer screening. I have asked myself: What in the world could he be talking about there? My staff thinks the only thing he could be referring to is the proposal to reduce funding for Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America. He goes on to say: Do they really want to shut the government down because the tea party doesn't want scientists to make sure the air we breathe is clean and pure? Give me a break. He goes on to say: This is a time we don't have to fight over the tea party's extreme social agenda. They had a tape of my good friend, Senator Schumer, and he had to back down from it, but everyone agreed to use the word ``extreme.'' So they called everybody ``extreme.'' They had a press conference and it got picked up. One of our fine Democratic colleagues was talking about the extreme Republicans, and then he said the extreme Republicans, ``my good friends.'' Good for him. Give me a break. There are other statements like that. The Democratic leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, said: The GOP Ryan budget is a path to poverty for America's seniors and children and a road to riches for big oil. One of the Congressmen said that the Ryan budget ``puts yet another brick in the wall between the haves and the have nots.'' Senator Conrad, chairman of the Budget Committee, of which I am the ranking member, called that budget ``unsustainable and unreasonable.'' Well, we have a problem in America. The debt in this country is dangerous. We are coming out of the recession, and we need to continue growth. We need to continue job creation. It is not as good as a lot of people say, but it is improving. It has been slower than most recessions for us to recover. But Alan Greenspan, Erskine Bowles, Bill Gross at PIMCO bond company, the largest in the world, who has stopped buying U.S. Treasury bonds and sold all his U.S. Treasury bonds, and Moody's have all warned us that we could be facing a crisis in short order. We need to make some changes. Also, all of this is being conducted under an atmosphere that is affected by the budget for fiscal year 2012. Chairman Ryan and his fabulous Budget Committee in the House have produced a very good budget. It is a courageous and long-term budget which deals with the unsustainable course of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. He proposes solutions that save those programs and protect our seniors. They put us on the right trajectory. That is what has been hammered as some extreme document. What has the Senate produced? Nothing. The Senate hasn't produced anything, nada. This is most troubling. But what has the other party, who is required to submit a budget--the Budget Act requires the Senate to produce a budget, and it requires the House to produce a budget, and it requires the President to submit a budget. The President, a week late, submitted a budget. Mr. Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson tell us we are facing the most predictable economic crisis in our Nation's history as a result of the debt we are running up. We cannot continue this. It is unsustainable. Mr. Bernanke says we are on an unsustainable course. What did the President do? What kind of budget did he propose? His budget increases spending every year. It increases discretionary spending every year. It increases taxes by $1.7 trillion. It doubles the debt in 5 years and triples it in 10 years. It is unsustainable. It is, in light of the circumstances we face today, unacceptable. He provides no suggestion whatsoever to save Social Security, which is moving into an unsustainable course, nothing whatsoever to fix or strengthen Medicare or Medicaid, all of which every expert in the country agrees are on dangerous paths that cannot be sustained. It is stunning. Interest on our debt last year was $200 billion. We borrow the money we don't have. Interest last year was $200 billion. This year, we are going to spend $3.6 trillion and we are going to take in $2.2 trillion. Forty cents out of every dollar we spend is borrowed. This is the third straight year with a $1 trillion-plus deficit. These last 3 years, we are averaging $1.4 trillion in deficits per year. The highest we ever had before that was $450 billion. The lowest budget deficit, projected by the President's own budget office, scored by the CBO, in 10 years would be $740 billion. Worse, it is going up in the outyears. In the tenth year, under President Obama's budget, the deficit would be $1.2 trillion. And the reason the numbers dropped was always there--based on the projection that our economy will continue to rebound, nothing that the President has done. His spending levels increased under the budget. Therefore, I believe and I honestly think that the President's budget, in light of the warning and the danger this debt is posing to America, is the most irresponsible budget ever presented by a President of the United States. It is stunningly damaging. It is unacceptable. It accelerates the unsustainable path we are on. As Congressman Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, said, it makes it worse than the unsustainable baseline numbers we are operating under now. It makes it worse. The Republican House has produced a good budget, the President has produced a budget that is unacceptable, and our Democratic colleagues in the Senate have produced nothing. They just want to complain. They want to make these kinds of attacks: punishing working families; another brick in the wall between the haves and the have-nots; denying women the right to have breast exams and cancer screening; extreme social agenda--extreme, extreme, extreme. Be sure to use that word, ``extreme.'' I don't believe the American people are going to buy this or that they are going to be taken in by the big spenders. They weren't last fall when 64 new House Members were elected who are committed to restrained spending, and I don't believe they will in the future. Some think that Republicans will get blamed for shutting down the government if they don't have an agreement. Let's talk about that. As a matter of compromise, the House has sent over another bill, H.R. 1363, that would extend funding for another week and allow the negotiations to continue for another week, and that will reduce spending by an additional $12 billion. That bill also funds the Defense Department through the end of this fiscal year so that they are not hung out there with CR after CR, and so that the Defense Department, the people who defend our country can have confidence in the funding level for the rest of the year. H.R. 1363 is here in the Senate. The House passed that legislation so the Senate can pass a permanent fix for the rest of the fiscal year or it can do 1 more week and we can continue to talk. It is hard for me to imagine how the Republican House, which has sent two good pieces of legislation over here, ought to be blamed when the Senate has passed nothing. They brought up nothing. It is a bit odd to me also that the President said, ``I am going to veto it.'' I saw a commentator this morning say that the President wants to act like a good daddy and try to get the Senate and the House together and put his arm around them and be the person who brings them all together. Maybe that would be good if it would happen. It looks as if he has taken that hat off and is threatening to veto even a 1-week extension of spending that funds the Defense Department. Why? One experienced Senator told me: I will tell you why. Senator Reid may not have the votes. He may not want to vote on the 1-week CR. A lot of his Members are getting tired of this. They know we have to reduce spending and we need to fund the Defense Department. If it came up on the floor, maybe a lot of Democratic Senators would vote for it and it would pass. Maybe they can work out some of these agreements if we have another week. I am just saying that some people think all of this sound and fury is politics. I guess there is some politics in it; that is hard to deny. But this is not the normal political squabble between Republicans and Democrats. We really do face a debt crisis. We really have a responsibility. President Obama's own debt commission pleaded with us to do something about the systemic threat we face from our surging debt that could knock down the growth and progress we are just beginning to feel a little bit here. It could kick us back. Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and as Erskine Bowles, a chairman of President Obama's debt commission and President Clinton's former chief of staff, have said that nothing could be more devastating to the country than if we had a debt crisis. They are warning us to do something now, not just a short-term spending level for the rest of this fiscal year but the budget for the next year. They tell us we have to deal with the entitlements, the long-term danger they present, as well as the short- term spending levels. I believe Congress knows that. Some say the American people don't believe in cuts; they talk about cuts, but they don't believe in them. I don't think so. I believe Mr. Christie is hanging in there in New Jersey, and Governor Cuomo in New York is proposing serious reductions in spending. His popularity is strong. In Alabama, my State, Dr. Bentley, our new Governor, just announced that the discretionary spending levels would be cut by 15 percent the rest of this fiscal year. Nothing we are proposing is close to those kinds of spending reductions they are talking about in Alabama. We are going to have to do some spending reductions. It is going to be meaningful, significant, and it will be difficult to deal with. We should do it carefully. If we bring down this level of spending, it will have a transformative impact. For example, if you take the $61 billion and you did what the House said--reduce the spending level $61 billion--that reduces the baseline of Federal spending by $61 billion, and over 10 years we will save $860 billion. That is real money just from reducing baseline spending by $61 billion. We have to think in terms of 10-, 20- , 30-year budgets because, as it gets in the outyears, the dangers are even worse. I believe we can do this, and I believe the American people are ready to face up to these challenges. I salute my colleagues in the House for presenting a budget that is honest. If you want to know what kind of challenges we face, look at that House budget because it deals with them. The budget the President submitted is filled with gimmicks. When the CBO analyzed the President's budget, it found over $1 trillion in gimmicks. CBO found that his debt projections were off by over $1 trillion because of gimmicks. I think Congressman Ryan's budget is honest. Not only that, it deals with the long-term threats to our economy and our finances. It is something we ought to consider. If my colleagues have different ways to achieve some of the things he achieves in his plan, let's hear them, let's talk about them. Let's make sure seniors are not going to get hammered and unfairly treated in any way. We can do that. We ought to have an open and fair debate. The only people who have stepped up and have shown leadership so far have been the members of the House Budget Committee. The President's budget is irresponsible, and the Senate has done nothing. It is time for us to get together, get our act together, finish the funding for this fiscal year, reduce spending every dollar we can, and do a budget for next year that puts us on a path to a sound economy where growth can occur and jobs will be created. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I appreciate the Senator's comment. I would like to respond to that. The House has sent over a bill that does not have those provisions in it--a 1-week extension, and it funds the military. It is available to be passed, also, and would allow further discussions and negotiations on how to complete the last of the year without affecting the military. I just have to tell you, I have no desire to fund Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America. Maybe that is what you think Federal taxpayers ought to spend their money on, but I do not. But that is not the critical issue. The critical issue is how much we spend. I certainly agree with that. The House has sent over legislation, both for the whole fiscal year and for a short term, to continue it. If this government is shut down, it will be because of the Democratic Senate and the threat of President Obama to veto this legislation if it were passed. Why don't they bring it up for a vote? Perhaps it is because a number of Democrats who are uneasy about this reckless spending might feel that voting for this would be a good way to continue the negotiations and work through it and it might pass. So the President has now jumped into the middle of it and proposed to shut the government down. And I do not appreciate my colleague--who is fine; we serve on the Judiciary Committee together--talking about that this is all extremist rightwingers. Give me a break. He said: They really have this secret agenda. They pretend it is all about the deficits. It is not about the deficits. It is about some extremist rightwing agenda. He then launches into a full-fledged attack, as has Senator Schumer, on the tea party, some of the best people in our country who got terribly afraid for our Nation and went out and marched all over America--millions, tens of millions--who had never before done anything like that. I talk to them all the time. Are these bad people? And let me tell you, Erskine Bowles, former Chief of Staff to President Clinton, chosen by President Obama to head his debt commission, came before the Budget Committee just 2 weeks ago, and he and Alan Simpson, his cochairman, issued a written statement: We are facing the most predictable economic crisis in our Nation's history. ``Predictable crisis'' means we could be thrown back into another recession or a depression. When asked by Chairman Conrad, our Democratic chairman, when this might happen, what did President Obama's chairman say? Two years, maybe a little before, maybe a little later. Alan Simpson piped up: I think 1 year. Hopefully this is not so. Hopefully, we are not going to have a debt crisis in a year or 2 years. But these people who took testimony for weeks and months and provided their opinion on how to fix our debt, they say we are facing a debt crisis that could put us into a recession and surge unemployment, even though it is just beginning to come down a little bit. This is not a Republican-Democratic squabble. These are Democratic leaders who warned us. Alice Rivlin headed the other commission with Pete Domenici, our former chairman of the Budget Committee. Pete Domenici, now retired from the Senate, said: I have never been more afraid for my country-- one of the most eloquent orators I have ever heard in the Senate--never been more afraid for my country. When you have deficits--this year, we take in $2.2 trillion and spend $3.7 trillion--borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, we are creating a nation at risk. That is what we are talking about. So this past election, it was a big issue. All over America, candidates ran for office, and the ones who were the big spenders, who were in denial about the danger the Nation faces, got shellacked. Sixty-four Republicans got elected to the House--the biggest Republican victory in 80 years--over one issue, really. Spending, that is what it was. When we came into the Senate they had only passed, when they had this supermajority in the House and in the Senate, a 5-month continuing resolution. The Democrats didn't pass a budget nor did they pass a single appropriations bill. So everybody knew that after this election, the funding level was going to be reduced. The American people had spoken. He walks in, our majority leader, Harry Reid, and says, We will cut spending by $4.6 billion out of $3,700 billion we spent. Give me a break: $4.6 billion out of $3,700 billion that we spent is somehow significant? The House only recommended $61 billion in the last 7 months, but that makes a difference. When you reduce the baseline, $61 billion--and the interest you save--$61 billion plus interest, it adds up to $860 billion saved over a 10-year period. That is coming close to $1 trillion in savings, by that one act. But when you spend on the upswing, likewise, you end up raising the baseline and surging spending and debt. That is why we have to get responsible, and when we do, we can make a bigger impact than a lot of people think. I remain unhappy and stunned that my Democratic colleagues are in full-fledged attack on the good and decent people who stood up and complained about what was happening in Washington and now don't hesitate to attack the tea party as extremists. I object to that. I think it is wrong. We are in a serious problem. I think many of my colleagues--I know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed to me that we need to do better, that we have to change the trajectory we are on. I think there is a real possibility for bipartisan action, but it is only a possibility. I actually have been fairly hopeful, but--we have had a lot of talk on the other side of the aisle, but I haven't seen anything moving--nothing--except the President's budget. The Senator from Wyoming said ``The Economist Magazine'' called it dishonest. It is. What they said about it was it has been found false by five different fact checks. They say it calls on us to live within our means. The budget director said it will allow us to pay down our debt, when the lowest single deficit we are projected to have under the budget the President submitted to us is $748 billion.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that of the 10 minutes allotted to this side, I be allowed to have 3 minutes and Senator Moran 7 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and would share a few things. If my Democratic colleagues would prefer not to shut the government down, then do not do it. The House, the Republican House, has passed a bill to fund the government, to fund the Defense Department, and the Senate, the Democratic Senate, has passed nothing. Indeed, the Democratic leadership proposed a bill that they said was worthwhile that would have reduced spending by $4.6 billion. Ten Democratic Senators defected from the leadership position--a pretty gutsy thing to do on an issue as important as this.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to yield for a question, although my time is limited.

Mr. SESSIONS. All right. Go ahead.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on the question of funding the Defense Department, it is a very serious matter. We need to handle that correctly. I will just recall for my colleagues that the House has sent legislation to us that would fund the government for an additional week, with a reduction in spending of $12 billion, but that would fund the Defense Department for the rest of the fiscal year and take that matter off the table, guaranteeing there would be no disruption of the Defense Department. We should do that. We should have already done that. Senator McConnell, our leader on the Republican side, has said he will not support any more CRs unless we do fund the Defense Department. I have to suggest, however, that it appears to me our colleagues are using the Defense Department as a hostage and as leverage to the threat of shutting down, or partially shutting down, the Defense Department; the threat of that is used to sort of say that we are not going to cut spending anymore. So that is a fight we are in. We have heard the discussion about riders, but the new CR the House sent to us today doesn't have those riders on it, and it is not a problem in that regard. I do think it is irresponsible for the President of the United States--the Commander in Chief--to threaten to shut down the government. The Republican House has sent a bill over that funds the government and funds the Department. The threat to shut down the government is coming from the Democratic side. I don't think the people are going to be fooled. I do believe the American people's voices will be heard. The amount of reduction in spending makes a difference in how much is saved over a decade. Nobel Prize laureate Gary Becker; a superb economist, John Taylor; and former Secretary of State, George Schultz did a Wall Street Journal article recently, noting that under our spending--spending now is 24 percent of GDP--if the House bill that cuts spending by $61 billion were passed, we would be spending 20.0 percent of GDP--a one-tenth of 1 percent reduction in spending from another calculation. I yield to my colleague from Kansas. I am delighted to have him in the Senate.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few moments on behalf of the McConnell-Inhofe amendment. I thank them for their leadership in dealing with governmental regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, amendment No. 183. I want to share a few thoughts about a matter that is important to me. I served several years as ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. I am interested in our legal system and how it works. I have to say that the Supreme Court ruling that resulted in the situation we are in today is a classic example of how unelected officials--not just judges--can make laws and regulations in a manner that is dramatically contrary to the ideals of the American Founders, and in a manner that is contrary to the ideals on which this country was founded, ideals that require accountability, that require responsibility and that allow the American people to hold their officials responsible and accountable for what they do. For this reason alone I believe the McConnell-Inhofe amendment should be agreed to, because we are talking about a situation in which unelected governmental employees are systematically going about regulating emission of CO2 in the country under a very attenuated theory. They were never given the explicit authority to do so. They will, under the power they have asserted, have the ability to regulate your automobile, the heating unit in your home, hospitals, businesses, cities, and anything else that utilizes carbon fuels to produce energy. This is what it is all about. How did it happen? What occurred here? Well over forty years ago, Congress passed the first Clean Air Act, and since then, Congress has amended the Act several times. Congress was focused on cleaning up the air and dealing with smog, particulates, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide--all of these pollutants were being emitted into our atmosphere and were affecting the health and well-being of Americans, particularly in cities, and Congress took action to contain that, and it has helped produce a much cleaner environment. Pollution was far worse 40 years ago than it is today. Our atmosphere has far fewer dangerous pollutants in it and, in that regard, the Clean Air Act has been very successful. But since this Earth was created we have had a marvelous balance. Human beings and animals breathe in air. They take in oxygen out of that air and they breathe out carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. We have never considered it to be a pollutant. Plants, as you know from your basic high school classes, take in carbon dioxide and emit oxygen as part of a life cycle process that is marvelous and wonderful beyond our ability to express. Over the course of centuries and millennia, plants in the world took in carbon dioxide and, eventually, were buried in the earth. As a result, the carbon dioxide in those plants was trapped underground and developed into coal, oil, and other fuels. In recent years we have been taking those fuels out of the ground and burning it and, as a result, releasing the carbon dioxide. When the Clean Air Act was passed, there was no discussion or thought about any potential danger of a warming planet. Congress did not have the slightest idea at that time that thousands of bureaucrats would be able to one day take the Clean Air Act that they passed and control every home, every business, every city, every car, and every hospital in America. What happened? The concern over global warming arose. Whatever people believe about that, the concern certainly is out there. Many people believe it is a serious threat. Others think it is not so serious. But at any rate, a lawsuit was filed. That is what we have so much of in this country. People file lawsuits, especially on environmental issues. They said: The planet is warming, and one reason it is warming is because there is a global warming gas, CO2, that is being emitted more today, and this is a danger to us and we believe it is a pollutant now. So, they would call CO2, which naturally occurs in our atmosphere and is used by plants and vegetation, a pollutant because the planet is warming. What do you say, Supreme Court? The Court responds: We say it is a pollutant, and the EPA should be allowed to regulate it. By a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court seems to say, but not with much clarity, that EPA should look at regulating CO2 because that is what they said the Clean Air Act meant to allow. First of all, I don't think the statute meant that. I agree with the four judges who dissented. I believe Congress never had any intent whatsoever to give EPA the ability to control the emission of CO2 all over America. I have no doubt of that. It is not in the statute in a way that would clearly enable the Supreme Court to say that. I suspect it was a product of activism. Judges got excited about the claim several years ago regarding the danger of CO2 and global warming. Never mind that there seems to be actually less concern today about global warming. In any event, those judges wanted to see CO2 regulated and they interpreted the statute in a manner that would allow for it. Now the Environmental Protection Agency is setting about to do so. It is a major intervention by the U.S. Government in every aspect of American life. EPA regulation of carbon dioxide has the potential to drive up costs for individual Americans as they heat their homes and drive their cars and will place a real burden economically on the American economy. It will put us in a bad situation economically. So the McConnell-Inhofe amendment says: Wait a minute. Congress did not approve that. We do not want to do that yet. We do not want EPA regulating CO2 all over the country unless we direct them to do so--unless we, the elected representatives, decide it ought to be done. This important decision should not be made by five out of the nine members of the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments, totally unaccountable to the American people, or tens of thousands of governmental employees--public servants, bureaucrats--in the Environmental Protection Agency. They do not get to do it either. It is our responsibility. If we are going to impose a massive regulatory burden on every American in this Nation, this Congress ought to decide when and how and under what circumstances it should be done. We have people in this Congress and in this government who act like Congress has no control over it. They think: The Supreme Court rules, and EPA issues its regulations. Well, why do you not do something about it? They say: Oh, that just happens. We do not have any responsibility. It is not our responsibility. Do not blame me. You do not like it. Well, it was not my fault. I did not pass the Clean Air Act over 40 years ago. I was not on the Supreme Court. I am not an EPA bureaucrat. But we are the United States Congress, and we are accountable to the American people. It is a question of constitutionalism. It is a question of separation of powers. This a question of responsibility. If we were to decide that the emission of CO2 is a significant danger to our environment and it ought to be regulated, let's vote to say so. At this point in time, we are not able financially and there is not enough scientific evidence or justification for going forward with the regulation of CO2. And I am constrained to believe massive regulation is not the appropriate thing to do today--but that is a decision Congress ought to make. We ought to be held accountable for the decisions we make. That is the way our country was set up to conduct issues of importance. I have to tell you, this is a big issue that is before the Senate. We should have tremendous debate, weeks of debate, because federal regulation of these kinds of emissions could result in hundreds of billions of dollars in cost--or even trillions of dollars in cost, if we set about to regulate all CO2 in America. It just is. I do not see how it can be disputed. Unfortunately, we act like we are washing our hands of it. The Supreme Court did not make a policy decision that this was the right thing to do. That is not their role. In fact, they will deny that is what they did. They would say: All we did was take a statute passed long ago, before global warming was even considered an issue to be confronted by the Congress, and decided that the statute Congress passed then allows EPA to regulate CO2 now. And because of five justices, an unelected group of American employees are setting about to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. We do not need to do that. The American people should not allow this to happen. They should demand that their Congress be responsible for what it does when it imposes such a monumental cost on the economy and the American people. That is our responsibility. The McConnell-Inhofe Amendment before the Senate today faces up to that squarely. It says we are not going to allow this circuitous route of interpretation of statutes to result in one of the most massive governmental intrusions in American life to occur. It ought to be a matter of intense public debate and national discussion before such a thing happens. I salute my colleagues for offering their amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor and 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are in the middle of the budget debate and, as the Ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, it is something which is very important to me, and, I believe, to America. There are two aspects of it. One is, how will we finish this fiscal year that ends September 30? The House Republicans have sent over legislation that funds the government, but it is $61 billion less than was expected or had been projected under last year's budget. I don't think anyone would be surprised, after the last election and the big spenders took a pretty big hit, that there would be a reduction after the continuing resolution of, I guess, 5 months expired. Since that expired a few weeks ago and we have had some short-term continuing resolutions, we have reduced spending by about $10 billion. I truly believe we need to move it on down to a full $61 billion and, over 10 years, that will reduce the baseline by $61 billion and, fairly computed, it will save, over a 10-year timeframe alone, $860 billion. That is close to $1 trillion. It is real money. It is a significant step we should take. I hope this Congress will take it. The next matter that is before us is, what about next year's budget? We should already be in that cycle. The President has submitted the budget he is required by law to submit to the Congress. It does nothing about the threat to our country economically and financially. It is a great disappointment, the most irresponsible budget ever submitted, I am confident, by any President in the history of the American Republic. I have said that before, and I truly believe it. It is irresponsible. We cannot adopt it, we will not adopt it, and it will not become law. But our Senate has indicated they are prepared to consider--Democrats, too--a better budget, perhaps, but we haven't seen it. It has not been brought forth to the Budget Committee, as the law requires us to do, so far, and we are behind schedule. But the House tomorrow will consider a historic budget that honestly and carefully confronts the challenges facing us, long term and short term, dealing with entitlements, without gimmicks, and allows us to begin to focus on what the challenges are and why we have to take these steps. Because who wants to talk about cutting spending? What politician likes to do that? It is not something we like to do. Why are we talking about this? Why? Can't it be put off? Is it just political squabbling between Republicans and Democrats? They are always bickering. Is this what it is all about? Is there anything real here? Do we have a problem that can't be avoided? Is it something--can't we just continue like we are? Why do we have to worry about more reductions in spending? That is the question: Do we have a real crisis? Are we facing a threat to our economic well-being that could throw this country into another recession, maybe even a depression--surely, hopefully, not--a fiscal, financial crisis; is that possible? Let's talk about a couple things. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently stated that our national debt is the greatest threat to our national security. That is a pretty strong statement. Secretary of State Clinton said something very similar. Is that true? The American people pretty clearly agree with Admiral Mullen by a huge margin. They say we are on the wrong track. You are mismanaging Washington. There was a shellacking of the big spenders in the last election. People know we are spending too much money. We have had a 24-percent increase in spending since President Obama has been President--a 24-percent increase in discretionary nondefense spending. Inflation has been 1 or 2 percent during this time, and we had a 24- percent increase. Next year's budget by the President calls for an 11-percent increase in education, a 10.5-percent increase in the State Department, a 9.5- percent increase in the Energy Department, and a 61-percent increase in transportation and high-speed rail. What? The inflation rate is 2 percent and we have 5 times--or 50 times, nearly, that amount in spending increases? Alarmingly, it is not just the American people or just the tea party, great American people who are concerned about their country. It is not just tea party members who are expressing concern and calling for action. It is the Nation's top financial experts. This is what is important. They are calling for action sooner rather than later. Erskine Bowles, President Obama's choice to head the deficit commission, who was also President Clinton's Chief of Staff and is a very successful businessman himself--he was chosen by President Obama to head the debt commission, along with Alan Simpson, a former Republican Senator. In a written statement they submitted to the Budget Committee just 2 weeks ago, this is what they said. This is a formal written statement from the debt commission cochairman to the Budget Committee of the Senate: This is the most predictable financial crisis this Nation has ever faced. Predictable crisis. In other words, we can see it coming. They spent months doing research. They heard from all kinds of witnesses. When asked when the crisis might occur, which could involve some sort of double-dip recession or even a longer recession or higher unemployment, Mr. Bowles said it could be 2 years, maybe sooner, maybe later. Alan Simpson said it could be within a year. These are stark warnings, and the same message is coming from a host of the world's top financial experts. I have to say the good news is our country has a strong work ethic and an entrepreneurial spirit still exists. The indications are that despite the economic drag and our huge debt burden, the economy--far slower than normal recovering from this recession--is struggling to rebound. If we act decisively now to end our wasteful spending habits, we can be confident that progress in growth will continue. When our Nation's leaders are aware that their country is facing a crisis, they have no higher moral responsibility than to act to protect the Nation from that danger. Today's Wall Street Journal has an op-ed by the Nobel Prize laureate, Gary Becker; a former Secretary of the Treasury, George Shultz; and an economic professor, John Taylor. The article embraces the $61 billion in reduced spending passed by the House and debunks the critics unequivocally who call these cuts extreme. They directly and categorically rebut the assertion that these spending reductions will result in higher job losses and explain why that is a false view. Again, is the debate over spending just another Republican and Democratic squabble? Is it just an attempt to gain political advantage? Sound and fury signifying nothing? The answer is a resounding no. We are spending money we don't have in amounts dramatically greater than at any time in our history. When this fiscal year ends September 30, we will have spent $3.7 trillion and taken in only $2.2 trillion. Forty cents of every dollar we spend this year will be borrowed. We have to borrow the money we don't have. This will be the largest of three consecutive deficits exceeding $1 trillion. President Bush was rightly condemned for his $450 billion deficit 1 year--the highest he ever had. We have been over $1 trillion in the last 3 years. Next year's budget deficit is expected to exceed $1 trillion. This money must be borrowed and interest paid. Nothing comes from nothing. Last year, the Nation's total interest payment was $200 billion. That is how much we paid on the money we borrowed. For perspective, the Federal highway program--and Senator Inhofe knows about this--is about $40 billion, and we spent $200 billion on the interest. We would like to have spent more on highways. Federal education programs cost about $70 billion. So already the interest on our debt is the fastest growing expense of our government, and it is crowding out spending for other programs. But hold your hat. Our current trajectory takes us at increasing speed on a ``road,'' as the former head of the European Union said, ``to financial hell.'' He said that about the United States. According to the official score or analysis of the President's 10- year budget, the total debt of America will more than double, from $13 trillion to $27 trillion, over the 10-year period, and our annual interest will increase from $200 billion last year to $940 billion. That is how much interest we will be paying the tenth year under the budget. It will cost more than education, highways, energy, and the State Department combined. Indeed, our interest payment will surge past defense, Medicare, and Medicaid. That is why expert after expert, witness after witness, Republicans and Democrats, say the United States is on an ``unsustainable path.'' Yet President Obama's budget increases all spending every year, including discretionary spending, doubling the debt of the United States again, all the while raising taxes by almost $2 trillion. He makes no proposals to put Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security on sound footing--nothing. It creates a debt path where his lowest annual deficit in 10 years is $748 billion--that is the best year--with his outyear deficits increasing, so that by the tenth year his budget is scored as having a deficit of $1.2 trillion. Is that unsustainable or not? Is it extreme to say we have to change that course, that we can't continue it? Well, let me quote a few experts--not just Jeff Sessions, the Senator from Alabama. How about some people whose lives have been enmeshed in the debt of America? They seem to share the concerns, it seems to me, of the ``extremists''--the tea party people. What do the experts say? How about Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve? This is what he said: I think that the type of budget agreement that was put together by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles is the type of budget that will be passed by Congress. It doesn't look like that is so, unfortunately. He goes on to say: The only question is, will it be before or after the bond market crisis? Is Alan Greenspan an extremist? He said, also, a few weeks ago that we could have a debt crisis in our country in 2 to 3 years. Bill Gross, who heads the world's largest bond fund at Pacific Management, eliminated government-related debt from his flagship fund. They no longer have any U.S. Treasury bonds. This is what he wrote recently: If the USA were a corporation, then it would probably have a negative net worth of $35-$40 trillion once our ``assets'' were properly accounted for. . . . No lender would lend to such a corporation. Is Bill Gross extreme? Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson said: We believe that if we do not take decisive action, our Nation faces the most predictable economic crisis in its history. Mr. Bowles, before the Budget Committee, March 8, was asked how and when that might happen by Senator Conrad, our chairman. He said: The problem is going to happen. It is a problem we are going to have to face up to in maybe 2 years, maybe a little less, maybe a little more. Simpson said this: I think it [the crisis] could come before 2 years. Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, when asked about the Reinhart-Rogoff study--which said when debt reaches 90 percent of GDP, the economy of a nation slows down noticeably--and I believe Rogoff and Reinhart will be testifying before the committee tomorrow. When asked about their analysis, that 90 percent--your debt equals 90 percent of your gross domestic product, your economy is slowed and it pulls down; and we are already at 95 percent, heading to 100 percent by September 30--Mr. Geithner said it was an excellent study. He didn't say this is an extreme study. He said this: In some ways . . . it understates the risks, because it is not just that countries that live with very high debt-to-GDP ratios are consigned to weaker growth; they are consigned to the damage that comes from periodic financial crises as well. Is Secretary Geithner extreme? Is Admiral Mullen extreme? Senator Conrad, our chairman, is very concerned about the trajectory we are on. On March 15, at a Budget Committee hearing, this is what he said: I believe our Nation is in peril. We are hurtling toward a fiscal cliff. . . . We are clearly on an unsustainable course. Pete Domenici, who was part of the Rivlin-Domenici debt commission, which was similar to Bowles-Simpson, and was also the former chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate, said this: I have never been more worried for my country. Are Senator Conrad and Senator Domenici extreme? I think not. Only three bodies can propose spending plans. The White House budget has been submitted. It would double our debt, surge our interest burden, increase spending at every level, and raise taxes substantially. Tomorrow we will have the House plan. It will be released by Budget Chairman Ryan. It is the most serious attempt ever made to solve America's spending and debt problems while saving critical programs, such as Medicare--saving those programs. They are beginning to default now. What does the Senate plan to do, the Democratic Senate? Doing nothing seems to be the plan. We have not seen a budget proposal and haven't had a hearing set for the markup of a budget proposal. I doubt that the President's plan will be brought forward in its present form because it would receive not many Democratic votes and, I suspect, no Republican votes. I don't know. The Senate has to do something. We have to propose a budget and be engaged in the process. We can't stick our heads in the sand. We cannot be in denial. Is the President going to change? Is he going to all of a sudden take responsibility for the fact that we may be heading to a fiscal crisis that could surge unemployment, surge interest rates, and place this Nation in financial risk? We have not seen it yet. If he does not act, what will our Senate Democratic colleagues do? I call on them to step up and represent their constituents, to do the right thing. We have to do the right thing. We cannot continue on this course. In my view, American leaders have no higher duty, no greater moral responsibility than to take all the appropriate steps to protect the good people we serve from a clear and present danger--a danger that has been detailed to us with clarity and repetition by some of America's finest leaders. I yield the floor.