>> had he painted that picture and instead but i will have a budget that will put that forward, and put forward the simpson-bowles budget for us to debate, and i assume pass if we had that same bleak picture imprinted on the people's minds, but that didn't happen. he came forward with another

stamos budget just as he did this year. so in 1997 when i first came to washington our national debt was $504 trillion. without any action that number will continue to increase to a level that is even more unsustainable. we're spending more today than ever before. we are seeing trillion dollars a year increases in the debt with no end in sight. what will happen if we don't act to cut spending? we will be able to afford the military we need. people won't get a social security check. roads won't be fixed. all our money will go towards paying interest on the debt. people shouldn't doubt this is real. there were riots in the streets increase when their government was forced to face the realities of debt come and their debt was less than ours. our debt per person is more than greece's debt per person. time and time again the federal government has proven it is incapable of discipline. time and again the federal government has that more money

than it brings in. it has led to the situation we currently face. we are now borrowing over 40 cents of every dollar we spend. for years we've tried to hide it, disguise it, ignored, we have acted like it's okay to keep spending money we don't have. we have -- we don't have the option any longer. the world today is different than the world was in 1997. we appear to be hiding once again today rather than making a budget resolution that could be conference to the majority. while i strongly support the simpson-bowles plan and thank chairman conrad and senator crapo for your service on the commission, one of the key aspects for the bipartisan nature, i was consulted about the plan were discussing today your ranking member sessions was consulted. this is and what legislation is supposed to work or i simply wanted for already that we've had a chance to work and even aware pass all the deadlifter for supposed to come together to do the hard work of the comedic

were supposed to find areas where we can agree and push them forward. the simpson's bold plan is a good outline. we need to work together to hammer out the details. i am assuming in the budget some those details can be done because they are excluded from the budget. but that isn't what we're doing today. fiscal year 2011, the government brought in slightly more than two and three-tenths million in revenue. at the 10th and we clicked two and three trends trillion. in other words, we overspent by one three-tenths trillion. that's an astonishing amount of spending and they can't be sustained. we have the opportunity to change that trend, and to do that we have to stop digging. we can start by considering serious proposals to curtail federal spending and steer the country back on track to fiscal responsibility. my republican colleagues has introduce cost-saving measures and budget proposals that i produce my own bill to balance the nation's budget. why we have done this, where is the president aware is colleagues of the majority? last year president obama's

budget was such an answer is proposal that failed by a vote of 97-0 innocent. not a single member was willing to support the president's budget proposal. in this senate we have a past budget of more than 1000 days and a budget that were discussing today isn't likely to come to the senate floor for debate until these after the election. once again we're passing the buck because majority leader doesn't want his caucus to have to make politically tough votes. i understand. none of us like to make tough votes. but consider this, by of wooden boats he has been avoiding solutions. problems aren't getting solved and this hurts members more than making some tough votes. at a time when the national debt brings down more than 49,000 for every person in wyoming and across the country, there's no justification for business as usual. we cannot wait until it is

politically expedient to do what must be done. we cannot keep talking about the problems, promising solutions and then shine away from the discussions. citizens across the country are also weighing in and they're angry at understand. congressional approval is at an all time low for our inability to make changes to the way government operates is less -- has left taxpayers with less and less confidence. i said it before but it bears repeating. we cannot continue to pump the tough decisions. right now the decisions we make will be tough and that will cause pain. if we continue to avoid making any significant headway in addressing art that in spin, the pain that we fell in the future will be much greater. i've heard from a lot of people in wyoming about the national debt, the lack of budget resolution. this year different ideas and opinions about what solutions we should focus on, but one message is universal. do something, and do it now.

this message should resonate with all this and galvanize us to come to the table and do a we are sent here to accomplish it instead, look like live in today with more talk and no action. i repeat, the house republicans at least a budget and voted on. the senate house democrats chastise paul ryan for the budget. senator toomey has a budget that balances in eight years that he is ready to vote on, and yet here we are today without a notable player. from the senate democrats. it's too bad, i'm ready to put in the work necessary to pass a budget and get our country unsustainable fiscal path. unfortunately, doesn't look like without any opportunity to do that work today. i hope we do in the near future. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator crapo is recognized for statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to say at the outset i appreciate you bringing forward a proposal, conference of proposal, and for seeking to put into play a process that will help us to get where we need to

get in this country. i have appreciated the hundreds and hundreds of hours that you at and other members of the group of six, now eight, have put in to trying to find the bipartisan path to move this country into a sustainable fiscal position. we face a crisis today that it is the biggest crisis our nation have ever faced with the possibility of the threat of some of wars, but as far financial crisis, this is the crisscross i think america has ever faced. we really must have bold, strong action to move forward. i have looked for for a long time to this day when the budget committee would have a comprehensive plan that we could discuss. i do have to say, as i said to you, privately, that i'm discouraged at the same time though that although the proposal is being put forward we are not going to be able to seize act on it in the committee. i'm very discouraged about the

fact that we're not going to move forward. and take the necessary steps that will help us to build that foundation for the ultimate resolution of this issue by congress. you know, i understand that a comprehensive fiscal plant of the nature that we need to put into place is much bigger than actually a budget resolution can achieve. and understand that there are many, many pieces of this that when extensive negotiation to be put into place. the reason i'm discouraged about the notion that we won't have regular order in this committee is that i believe there are, all those parts of it, that the budget resolution can achieve and those processes that the budget resolution can put into place, there are many key elements that need to be worked into it. for example, i think some things need to be taken out of the

plan. some things need to be added into the plan, and i will give a couple specifics about that in a minute. but the polling is we could make significant progress if we could simply have the opportunity in this committee to get into regular order and let all of these ideas be hashed out and played out. when we talk about what is needed in terms of a comprehensive solution, you've indicated the proposal you're putting down today is in excess of $5 trillion of deficit, posture reduction. we need at least that, if not more. because i've looked at the bowles-simpson proposal and the gang of six proposals and others that are out there. it seems to me there's five different elements in a broad sense that needs to be included first is a discretionary spending control. second is major structural reform of our entitlement systems. third is reform and achieving

the solvency of the social security system. fourth is an enforcement mechanism which you have referenced earlier that a strong enough to make sure that the budget control act or whatever budgets this congress adopts are ultimately followed through on. i served in congress for a number of years now, and i can't recall ever getting to the second tier of any budget. because we ask into the first year of, and by the time we get around to the next year we passing a budget, or we don't pass a budget at all. and even in the first year we wait significant parts of the budget that we just adopted to the emergency designation procedure, and other procedures. that's why it is so critical of the fourth element of this he a very powerful enforcement mechanism, which we have negotiated. and that this is of course the tax reform. as you said earlier, we have a tax reform, a tax system right

now that is unfair. it is expensive to comply with. in fact, it's probably, it would be hard for us to design a tax system that is more unfair or more expensive to comply with, more complex, and, frankly, more anti-competitive to u.s. business interests than the one we have. and so with those five elements are the things we need to achieve. the reason i go to do is because it would have a chance to do a markup, we would then be able to get into the details on some things, we wouldn't solve everything. i know we would need much more extensive opportunist than a budget resolution would allow for that here but let me just give a couple of examples. enforcement mechanism i just talked about. i'd like to bring an amendment and i like to see his committee adopt the enforcement mechanism that the gang of six negotiated. and i think it would. i think that the amendment would pass this committee if we could have a chance to do so. and by doing that we would then be putting into place, at least

putting into play when a key solution pieces of a broader package. another example would be in the tax arena, as was told to us in both the fiscal commission and in the gang of six deliberations, and others, one of the best things we could do for generating more revenue for our economy is to get a tax system that is more competitive than it needs all of the tests that we both discussed here today. that would generate phenomenal economic growth and economic growth is the kind of thing that would generate additional tax revenues and help us to meet those revenue targets in the proposal. i'd like to bring an amendment to change our scoring mechanisms here in congress so that we recognize the dynamic impact of tax policy and spending policy, and utilize that in building the bipartisan agreement to move forward. i think we could have been progress made on that score, on that level, if we had a chance

for a market. another example is senator stabenow just mention in the agriculture arena they got the message, and they have looked at the targets, republicans and democrats on the ag committee in the house and senate, and they have started and made great progress in coming together in agreement, bipartisan agreement to meet those targets, even though we haven't yet in force them. and so the are numerous other examples. my point is simply this. i am very happy to see us now getting an opportunity and a structural way in congress to start delivering about these issues, while we will also need to continue the negotiations outside of the hearing ram and outside of the committee room. but i'm discouraged that that process will only last a short time and that we will not be in your putting into effect regular order in such a way that we could actually construct an adopt and put into place a lot of the pieces of what will

ultimately be needed. not conclude that you i will conclude with this. you mention will happen at the end of the. as i look at it, i'm sure we're getting some of it, we are the expiration of 2001-2003 tax cuts. we have the sequestration coming into effect. we have the exploration of the policy come where the expiration of the unemployment tax support extension, we will reach the debt ceiling. many of the other if we don't resolve them, many of the other tax extenders and other tax policies that we badly need, at least make our current total of more competitive will expire and need to be handled. and the list goes on. i just believe, and the doc fix, among many others will come into play again at that point. and like i said i'm forgetting some others. so my point is, if we can use regular order between now and hopefully the next couple of

weeks to build some of the pieces, we will give ourselves a much better opportunity windy november-december time frame arise to be able to put together the kind of fiscal policy plan that our country needs. so i just ask you again, mr. chairman, to reconsider the notion that we won't go into regular order, get the budget consideration in front of us, find those parts that we have to delete in order to achieve bipartisan agreement, find those parts that we can add to it that we can help build and put into place the pieces of the solution that can then help us later in the year, and a top to budget. and i just employer, mr. chairman, to consider letting this committee do that job. thank you. >> i thank the senator. and i thank him for his extraordinary effort, both as part of the simpson-bowles commission and as part of the group of six, now the group of eight. you literally have spent hundreds of hours in a very

serious way, and i've enjoyed working with the sender. senator cardin is recognized for his statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me just move on very quickly to senator crapo but i think senator conrad has given us the best chance to achieve those type of results because as i understand what i would consider to be the regular order, if we can have a budget resolution that allows our committees to function, then we have an agreement such as the bowles-simpson agreement which is a bipartisan effort that many of you have worked on. it seems to me that's the most constructive way rather than getting into the details that the committee's jurisdiction are going to have to get. and if we are giving adequate instruction we can get to that point without divisiveness that the budget markup normally entitled, entails.

at least every budget markup i've gone through so far my short term and estates has been a dash that are just like to make a couple comments from either our current deficit is not sustainable. we all understand. we take a look at the amount of debt that we're accumulating as a percentage of our economy. it's not a sustainable amount. we know we need to do something about it. we will dash that it will lead to higher interest rates and be very damaging to come. i oppose many of policies that led to these deficits but i'd responsibility along with every member of the senate to come up with a credible plan that will get us out from these deficits. short-term as the chairman pointed out, we have the budget control. with fy '12, fy '13, we have the instructions to our committee. it stronger than a budget resolution in that it has

enforcement and caps and it has been signed by the president. but after fy '13 we do need a game plan for fy '14 and beyond. it's a credible plan. and as third party values as being a credible plan. this is, bowles-simpson has been validated as a credible bipartisan plan to move our country forward in a long-term budget responsible budget plan. it's bipartisan ticket protect our most vulnerable citizens. i commend people serve on commission from addition we have the protections for our most vulnerable. that is very well pointed out in the commission's recommendations but it's a balance between revenues and spending cuts quite frankly there is only two ways you can balance the budget. you bring in more revenue or you cut spending.

the bowles-simpson as a proper balance between additional revenues and less spending per ipod their effort. if you look at what this committee should begin, and that is giving macro instructions to our committees, i would hope that we could reach that consensus. when the bowles-simpson recommendation came out, i supported the macro numbers. i took some of the specific recommendations, as i think each one of us has, but that's the work that will be done by the committees of jurisdiction. that's not the work that is being done by the budget committee. i disagree with some of the attacks recommendation to i listen to senator crapo and i think he had a lot of good ideas. but that is up to the senate finance committee that we serve on. that's how it should work. the chairman's mark allows us to deal with that. it will come as a surprise i think any member of this

committee i strongly disagree with specific recommendations of the bowles-simpson's committee as it relates to federal workers. i thought it was wrong. i thought the way that they handled federal compensation and the workforce numbers did a disservice to our federal workforce. to come in with a number of bowles-simpson but without them punitive action as i see it to our federal workforce. i believe the chairman's mark allows us to do that. is our responsibility to act, and i tell you, i hope we will act this year. it will only happen if we have a bipartisan agreement to act. we've got to listen to each other. if we can do that we can avoid sequestration, we can remove the uncertainty that is currently in our economy which is a drag on economic recovery. it could help our economic recovery. a partisan budget, either presented by the democrats or republicans, will not dash to i

applaud the chairman for recognizing that. we would've better democratic budget and your republican budget. it's not going to be in the process that you saw what happened in the house of representatives you have it arson republican budget that the house has but it's not going to become, it's not going to pass the senate and it's not advancing the process of moving forward with fy '14 and beyond. so i just really wanted to applaud the chairman force actions are i think it's the right way that we need to move forward. i would be the first to acknowledge that it's a long shot we can get this done before the elections. but if we don't move in the chairman's direction we have no shot. this at least gives us a chance to try to come together into something that most people think we can't get done. and i think the chairman has given us the best possible ability to accomplish those results, and i applaud him. >> i thank the senator. would now recognize senator

cornyn for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are going to miss your charts when you're no longer chairman of the committee. we're not going to miss the bad jokes. [laughter] and the friendly banter. but i want to say how much i appreciate your efforts to bring a budget to the senate floor, and how much i have sympathized with your dilemma. even though as one of the acknowledged budget experts on capitol hill, there are not very many of them, i'm talking about you, not me, you understand our country faces a looming fiscal crisis. yet majority leader reid, who determines what measures will or will not be brought to the floor of the senate, has shown no interest in having the senate complete one of its most fundamental duties, which puts you as chairman of the budget

committee in an awkward position, as both unfortunate and unfair. at the end of a long and distinguished senate career, you deserve much better, and so do the american people. as members of the communion is been more than a thousand days since the senate passed a budget plan, and if you don't, you can't pass a budget, if you don't vote. best i can tell, there are no current plans for us to vote on any budget this year. either here in the committee or on the senate floor. and any working family or small business owner can tell you that without a budget, it's much harder to address current or future finance problems. situation in congress as we see it as i tried to describe it leaves my constituents scratching their heads with amazement. that usually been more is into outrage as they yell at the television sets wonders why is

it congress can't get their act together and perform some of its most basic responsibilities. it's no wonder that without a budget plan washington will not get its fiscal house in order. this has led of course a trillion dollar deficits, a runaway debt that is now larger than our economy and with the united states government losing its aaa credit rating. for this reason i am disappointed that the committee will not proceed with the market process to allow members of the committee to offer amendments. as a member of the senate armed services committee, finance committee and judiciary committee, i have come to understand that markups actually include a process of offering amendments and getting to vote on those amendments. unfortunately, will not have any of that process this week. again, you can't get a budget if you don't vote. it appears that everyone except the president and the majority leader thanks it's a worthwhile process to put forward a realistic budget.

the house of representatives has had seven votes on different budget proposals, and both the sender to senator toomey and senator paul have introduced their own budget proposals in the senate. we have also had the president, who followed the laws and submitted a budget, but i would note as senator india already has, it did not receive a single vote in the senate last year, and nor did the president's budget a single vote in the house of representatives this year. i think we have a good idea why no member of how support the presence budget. we know from a nonpartisan congressional budget office the present budget increases spending every year in the budget window. we know the president's budget would add $10 trillion to the debt. this for the weekend our fiscal house and, of course, every man, woman and child in america owes at least $50,000 in national debt. we also know that the president

wants to raise taxes on the american people, and, of course, his budget includes $2 trillion in higher taxes. finally, we know that the president's budget does not make any serious attempts to strengthen programs like medicare and social security, which we all know are unsustainable. in other words, the president proposes a big tax increase before dealing with the spiraling costs of entitlement programs, chasing are spinning with higher taxes. this is not a prescription that would either put americans back to work or get our fiscal house in order. i sincerely hope the majority leader will decide to shelve the political theater and gimmicks like the buffett tax that will do nothing to create jobs for lower prices at the pump or solve america's crisis. we need leadership. we don't need any more gimmicks. and delays to the american

people have waited long enough. otherwise i'm afraid that the public cynicism that is now generated about 10% approval rating for congress will only continue to grow in the days and months ahead. this will not bode well for anyone, democrats, republicans, or independence. we can't, i know we can deal responsibly with the great challenges that face our touch on a bipartisan basis but it's going to take leadership. i appreciate the leadership that you show, mr. chairman, in raising these issues, but i'm disappointed, as my colleagues are, that we're not going to be able to actually vote on a budget, and that this is more of an educational process that it is actually meeting our statutory duties to take up and consider a budget. but i realize that you are restricted by majority leader's refusal to bring a budget to the floor. ease the traffic cop. he decides what bills will or will not be considered

anti-semitic clear that the will not allow a budget resolution to come to the floor of the senate because of the imminent elections in november 2012. not want to put any this members any position of taking tough votes, but that's what we're here for, to take tough votes, to make our decisions on serious problems that offer serious solutions. i hope we will do that. >> senator whitehouse is recognized for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by commending you, your extraordinary leadership of this committee during my service. i have continuously be impressed by your patience and by your expertise. it has been a privilege to serve with you, sir, on the budget committee. and i've said this will be your final market. many may wonder why we are considering a budget resolution for fiscal year 2013 when the budget control act, when it has been enshrined in law and has

spending numbers for the next decade. in addition to budget control act, also included a deeming resolution for the next fiscal year's which means the appropriations committee can go forward with annual spending bills. even though we already have a budget as for next year, i agree that this committee can be helpful focusing attention on the longer-term comprehensive deficit reduction plan. the budget control act that nearly $1 trillion in discretionary spending and was a critical first step in getting our deficit under control, but much more needs to be done. i commend chairman for his focus on a comprehensive longer-term budget proposal. come the end of the year, these decisions will be forced upon us. if we begin meaningful bipartisan conversations now, we have the chance in this committee to play a significant role in those discussions. before considering any deficit

reduction plan, i would like to remember that when president clinton left office in 2001, he left a balanced budget and the country poised to pay down by 2009 our entire national debt held by the public. those surpluses were squandered, largely through deficits funding tax cuts tilted to the highest earning americans. any serious deficit reduction plan must include new revenue, and i'm pleased to see that the chairman's proposal based on the president's bipartisan fiscal commission would raise $2.4 trillion over 10 years through tax reform. a great majority of the american people and a majority of our colleagues here in the senate for a tax system that ensures that those at the very top of the income ladder pay the same tax rate middle-class families respect no matter how elegant reform that would come up with maybe, we are to include this safeguard against congresses again inserting loophole that

benefit primarily well-connected high income earners. i had deep concerns about the plans cuts to medicare and medicaid. as members of the committee heard me say repeatedly, we can substantially lower our health care spending and improve quality by improving the way in which we deliver health care. potential systemwide savings estimates have ranged from $700 billion per year estimate to the $1 trillion per year estimate of the former bush treasury secretary paul o'neill. the office testified before the committee last year and agreed with me on potential for delivery of the reform. as dead domenici and rep and when they were here. mr. paul said one you're saying is exactly right. but he added it is not

unfortunate scorable and that is why it is not in our report. senator simpson agreed saying my assessment had quote gone to the core of the. we should focus our health care a attention on setting cost containment goals and achieving them through to deliver system reform. if we're smart about this probably can avoid the types of benefit cuts included in the plan before us today. this need not be a partisan issue. senator portman is both intuitive with knowledge and conviction and i look forward to working with all my colleagues on both sides of the table to address the substantial deficit reduction promised by wise health care system reform. i do reject the fiscal commission social security recommendations. while other parts of the recommendations aren't more power from the social security proposal would restore long-term solvency to it 80%-20% combination but as we know the congressional budget act prohibits making changes to social security in the budget resolution and this resolution does not do the but the market

follows the recommendations of the fiscal commission. i make this point. particularly with respect to the chained cpi. the current cpi failed to reduce cost-of-living adjustments in 2010 and 2011. and i heard from council about how stretch their budgets have become. the cost of food and home heating oil and health care did, in fact, rise, although it failed. the chained cpi makes it worse, not better. social security is fully solvent through 2036. we can prolong its solvency throughout the next 75 years by applying the payroll tax to income above $250,000. i support a bill that does this and i would hope to included in any deficit reduction plan. mr. chairman, i thank you once again for your dedication to this committee, for your integrity and for your hard work on this budget proposal. i look forward to working with you to improve it, into passing a much-needed deficit reduction

plan. we could go through the regular routine of deficit neutral reserve funds vote back and forth, anticlimactic order romme on the senate floor. that has never been a very salutary process in my experience on this committee. the alternative is that this committee could become the fulcrum of decision for the important choices our country faces. a crucible for the necessary compromise that will lead us forward. it may be holding out too much hope for this committee to take on that role, but you place your bet on that, and if you're right, it would be a historic decision. >> i thank the senator. senator graham. senator graham is recognize for his statement. >> i think if you hold it down it works better. >> maybe we just have a bad one. >> did we pay the power bill? thank you. bipartisanship is breaking out

already. number one, let's pick up with the idea that the chairman is not the problem. the chairman has tried to be the solution in many different venues, the gang of six, several members are on the committee here to try to sit down in a bipartisan fashion to find a comprehensive solution on the revenue spending side. so clearly your heart is in the right place. i'm sure that was a tough political exercise, but institutionally we are broken. and that's how you get at 10%. i don't expect 100 senators to agree on a budget to get the nation out of debt. i expect about 65 of us to do that. the only way we'll ever do that is to have a compromise. the only way you'll have a compromise is if you have a document you can start working on. we have a statutory obligation, so i reject the notion that that this new process needs or

statutory obligation. we're supposed to produce a budget. and people know what that means. and i would really argue the committee as a whole, if the debt ceiling legislation is going to be seen as the budget, why do we even exist? i don't remember voting on the. i don't member having any input. it was done by a handful of people somewhere the net. i don't even know what they talk about. we should destroy this committee if we buy the idea that's an acceptable budget institutionally for the senate. as republicans and democrats, we need to reject that notion that what we did to raise the debt ceiling is inadequate substitute for what this committee is chartered to do under law. i think it would destroy the value of this committee. so i absolutely reject that what was done to raise the debt ceiling is an adequate. now, the 2010 election, if it was about anything it was about

saving america from walking off a cliff that damn the nation, republican, democrat, independent, as the acting most of the king on this committee who came out in 2010 election cycle felt like they had a mandate to do something different. that's what they wanted to be on this committee. the chairman has had that feeling for a very long time. we need to get a head of problem. so i think this is a serious political miscalculation by democratic leadership. you are not going to lose your job because you're trying to solve america's problems. you're going to lose your job if you just do the same old things. i'm going to vote for the ryan budget even though i would like to change parts of the. i honestly believe, mr. chairman, that the public in 2010 was trying to tell us, you've gone too far, you let it get too far out of control and we're demanding something new. so here's what is so disappointing for me. this great election we just had,

the voice of the people did not resonate very long copy. so we will have a new election. in 2012, here's what every republican on this committee is going to say, i hope. if you give us control of the senate, we're going to produce a budget statutorily under the requirements of the law. we are going to put our vision of how to balance the budget, build a revenue on the table. we will work with our democratic colleagues, but we're going to produce a document. because you have to do that at home. very few businesses are able to survive very long if they don't have a budget or a vision for the business. no family can afford to do what we've done a fair. so i think we're missing a great opportunity. i think we're letting the people down who elected this new congress. and to my new colleagues have come on this committee, i know you've got to be very disappointed. fanthank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much.

thank you for the opportunity to talk about my views on budget plans, and i guess people are watching us here, and i want to take a brief moment to explain kind of what we're doing. because that's important, what the process here. you've heard me say before, mr. chairman, i mean, here we are in the process of talking about a budget while appropriators are down the hall, or down some of the building actually appropriating the money for the budget. they are already doing the work. for us to believe that if we sit here for the next several weeks or months and debate a budget, and then assume that the appropriators within change all the actions they're doing, i think is misleading. the second part is the budget which is so, process is somewhat unusual to me as a former mayor, you know, mayor presents a budget that they vote on.

the mayor signs it. that's not what happened should people watch us and we do all the budget work and the president signed it and agrees to it is mistaken. that's not how it happened. it's appropriations bills he signs and agrees to. so the one thing he did sign and agree to come and i know people of different views and referred all the bit about here on the budget control act is that a is, the dutch control act is in place, and we had a chance to comment on. when a chance to debate it and all of the senate members. we did that. some voted for, some voted against it. the fact is it passed. the president signed it, set some targets, which appropriators are now working to. that's what we are at. so we can we had all that. we can debate all that but senator graham talked about, i'm not as new as some folks, i came

there with a big group of people who wanted to see something done differently. so let's talk about what the long-term future is. because that's what actually we can impact with the time that we have and the opportunity we have, in this process. i think when you look at those bipartisan agreement, which the fiscal commission plan, we can see pieces we like, some pieces we don't like him but it is a long-term blueprint. if there's anything that this committee can do, that is something that i embrace. it's not going to be fun. we have to make tough decisions, tough calls here in what we're going to do, but if we're going to just be frank with my colleagues on the other side as well so my colleagues, we can debate what we should be doing in the sense of a process. people are sick and tired of debating the process. what they want to know is what we're going to do. i'm interested in figuring out a long-term budget plan. that's what we have a chance to do. i can argue if we should've had

a budget debate, the chairman of my views. i'm not afraid of any of them. bring it on. i don't care. i've been through this before my first year. it was a joke. a waste of time. we all had a minutes. nothing you guys guys that came in but it was message from of what i call but at the end of a we looked each other in cyprus is on the back and said we did a great job and we walked out. the president didn't have to hear that budget. which makes no sense to our like executive branch hear the approaches, us, not just appropriation committee but all of us. but we don't have the process. so why not set up a process that we lay out a long-term plan but it's important remember that was already reduce the deficit to budget cuts over the last few years. significant prosit. almost $2 trillion. whenever some of the deficit reduction comes entirely spending cuts we're done. we are already come a look at

the economy where we've been provided some people think we can do better, and i agree, only come a long ways in three. we started to reduce this long-term problem. we have done some reduction. we have a stronger economy. as i mentioned as a former mayor you cannot solve this problem by just cutting away out of it. there's no way. i don't care what commercials people will run in the future against the on this are what brochures people will write out or what one-liners people will want to see. i've had to deal with these, it's a combination of things. first off, you have a direct impact on local control state government, which really means utilize more government. no, that's law enforcement, that's teaches, that's people taking care of kids through day care system, juvenile justice system. it's our court systems. it's everything you can imagine. so i commend the chairman for taking a balanced approach, and nonpartisan approach. i remember when bowles-simpson, some of you wrote press

releases, i could probably pile them up you. now we have in front of us, we don't need a gang of six, no disaffected people who worked on the. we don't need a supercommittee. this is the budget committee. this is what i thought the budget committee does. so we get a chance to do this, long-term. i've said before when it came in the senate three years, for a strong economic health to this country has three pieces to the. yes, we had to cut budgets. i've done that when i was mayor. i was offered multiple solutions, armed services committee, some of you, a variety of other things were no fun. read a lot of good discussions. let it also means have to have two other components. you have to of new revenues and jeff have smart investments. education, infrastructure, energy, for long-term, long-term for this country and for a budget. the fiscal commission plan is a very good start in this direction.

get a lot of good ability -- look at the architect of the plan. as i said it's -- i respect the plan because it is a broad-based approach but it includes savings, including defense in mandatory spending, including health care. a share ashur i share the chairman see that a balance approach tackles both mandatory and discretionary spending is the way we're going to get our fiscal house in order. i want to point out on the spending side the plan -- also includes 1.4 trillion on discretionary cuts in 840 billion in mandatory savings. over 10 just been will average 28.8% of gdp, below during the reagan era. on the revenue side, i support the message of tax reform on this plan. which is basically i will say is a plan that is a bipartisan plan that is already on the table.

senator wyden, senator coats and myself have proposed a comprehensive tactical is the best way to reduce our deficit through lowering rates, across the base in cutting taxes energy. over 10 years revenues will averaged 19 points 7% of gdp which is the same as under president clinton. senator wyden said many times on tax reform, work and making it six and then work again, and it creates jobs. it associates the total 86 tax reform with the names of jobs that came after it but it sure did help. i believe we need to untangle this truly complicated tax cut, especially, yesterday was her extra two days without for filling out our tax. i get plenty of calls from people frustrated in their last minutes as they figured out their last number that they had to pay, or the father getting a refund, did not give. but we need to untangle this taxco. doing so will create economic growth.

we create simpler tax code and increases revenue while actually lowering rates. it will lower corporate tax rates to make american business more competitive which will help businesses create more jobs. this will increase tax revenues without raising tax rates. having said all that i want to make a clear, this plan is not perfect. there are provisions i support and others that i simply are not on board with. i'm very concerned about the governmentwide change at cbi that senator whitehouse talked about which reduce benefits for current social security retirees. a social security would be chained cpi -- so for example, it will get worse for people are just retiring and lucky enough to live long lives. that means the grandmas and grandpas have a future that would be hit the hardest. this is not the right way to cut the cost because social security doesn't the treaty to the deficit. the plan eliminates a fundamental feature as part of the program from the beginning. under the current all, everyone

receives nearly the same assistance level benefit unrelated to wages. this proposal among other things raises the normal an early retirement ages and cuts the cost of living adjustment which already under measures the inflation rate. that means benefits would not keep up with increases and the cost of living. most troubling, this budget proposal endorses these changes despite the fact is the knowledge is social security cannot run on a deficit and is not responsible for our budget problems. this approach gets worse for older americans because it also would increase their share of costs for medicare. it's not a good combination. another, i have with this plan is that increases gas taxes by 15 cents. >> centric am i just few have gone over time. if you would be willing speak to i will summarize and submit this. let me just say, you are right on the nose. let me just say that i think there are some good things and some bad things in the proposal,

and i am looking forward to debate. i hope we don't just keep hammering over what we should and will good, but what we will do. i think this proposal lays out a broad-based bipartisan support, and i look forward to the great debate that we will have here. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator thune. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the senator from alaska suggesting this is a good starting point, and i think if it is a good starting point, there's got to be an endpoint summer. we have got to actually have both and have an opportunity to amend it and do what we would do if we were actually marking up a budget. and i would say that we are on this site i think sympathetic to you. we feel your pain. we like it better when you were "going rogue" and actually talking about doing a real markup, but, you know, i think that there's been a lot of suggestions that the bca is the bush. that was replacement of the substitute for having a budget.

i would argue the bca is what you end up when you don't have a budget. last year we didn't write a budgets we ended up at 11 our rushing to kabul something together to meet a deadline on the debt limit. we didn't address the important issues of entitlement reform and tax reform, which the supercommittee was supposed to address but there again, i mean, that's something that should've been our responsibility through this process. and let me just say, too, that i think that the suggestion that this be a starting point is all fine and good. we've had votes now on the president's budget here last year. the house has voted on the president's budget this year. the house voted on some version of the bowles-simpson commission plan. it only got 38 votes over there. my understanding is, i don't know, i've seen it yet but your mark is going to be higher in terms of taxes and spending than most voted on and over received

38 votes in the house. but i would argue that, you know, we can do big things around you. we need to do big things around you. if you look throughout history when faced with a crisis, this institution has demonstrated the capacity in working with the white house to accomplish some pretty big things. social security reform and 83. that was a republican president, democrat congress, 86 was taxes for. that was a republican president and democrat as the 96 was well passionate welfare reform. there's a history and precedent when necessary for us to do some big, bold things. so it really is unfortunate that what we're left with right now is not doing our job. and again, i don't think any of us here are suggesting that you don't approach this with the best intentions and want to get a budget. but we understand, too, that the statements that have been made by members of your leadership

are going to make it very for difficult for that to happen. even if we were to produce a budget to actually get a vote on the floor. and so, many of us on this site are disappointed. i think there's an expectation by the american people who have to live with it, budgets that the congress on to do its job. when you're talking about massive amounts of debt and massive deficits and tremendous need for genuine, serious reform, it can happen. it does take leadership not only here but from the white house. and in my view, we have not had a president who is leading into the challenges that we face. it was evidenced by his budget which as i said got zero votes in the house of representatives. so i think it's unfortunate we are where we are. my hope would be that at some point we could come forward and actually produce a budget and have a debate where we had votes and have an opportunity to talk about what i think are the big issues facing this country, and

the crisis that is ahead of us if we don't act, enacted soon. so i would just simply say that i think most of us on the second you've probably heard many of them already speak, aren't ready to go to work and ready to have a real process whereby we actually vote on amendments and try to get to a place where we can get something to the floor of the united states senate were all members have an opportunity to try and improve and strengthen and move us in a direction that will put our country on a more sustainable fiscal track. >> i think the sender. senator warner is recognized for a state of. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize about having to step up for a while. thank you for breaking a little glass. this was, lord knows, not the traditional approach. and loss probably ideas about how this came about or why it

came about, but as a guy who's only been here three years, you know, kind of the process here a round of document that is simply not you were future electoral campaigning process and how you actually try to reach common ground on a plan, 65, 70% of us could actually agree upon that would solve the problem. i think it's a much better approach. lord knows i know this simpson-bowles plan, which i've more than a passing familiarity with common will make folks on both side of the aisle, some folks on both sides of the aisle really upset. i think that's great. because i think it means that there may actually be a chance

for those of us who think there are 65 or 70 of those who actually could find common grounds, it might get us the chance to kind of get up to bat. clearly for all of the merits, or the merits, passionate or demerits, the ryan budget pass going out of the house, you know, it's not going to become law because it comes out as a partisan vehicle. and if you're to put a democratic proposal here, he would eke out of the budget me by one vote, 52, 53 votes at the end of the day, it's not going to become law. because our colleagues on the other side are not going to feel like they have got some ownership in a. at least this document, and there have been now supercommittee, simpson-bowles,

domenici-rivlin, gang of six. i think there is some for senators as well. involvement at the. have all kind of plus or minus 15 or 20% have come up with a plan that's got a mix of tax reform, entitlement reform. some additional cutback in domestic discretionary. some cutback in defense. so i think this is a good idea, as a starting point on where we go. i would just make a couple of other comments. for those of us, all of the hours we spent on gang of six, and some of the critiques that we didn't fully finished, i think we're still much further along than the press gave us credit for, but that sure as heck didn't happen overnight. that took enormous weeks and weeks and months, back and forth and negotiating and trying to understand each others' perspectives and ways that i

think were valuable. i think the opposite of that was the budget control act, which in a moment of crisis was thrown together and, i detected that from my perspective, was kind of my single moment of embarrassment of being a united states senator when i think we did an enormous disservice to this country, and to any kind of creeping economic recovery as we, late july and early august, and threw up something that, you come in earlier days when i've all been accused of deed you read the bill? but we had no choice but we had the preliminary work done and we set up downstream events that now we are living to route because we didn't have enough time to try to get right to if we do this right, in this process, maybe before the election but clearly after the

election, this committee could ask you come up with a product that could serve as a template for our colleagues in both the house and senate, and i echo some of the comments my colleagues have made and will take the president involved in this as well. three or four quick last point. i do think it's important to remember as we have had this debate, we still are in this period of extraordinary, and extraordinarily lucky time. interest rates after all time low. every 100 basis point increase in interest rates adds $1.3 trillion to the debt over a 10 year timeframe. so the notion of getting four to $5 trillion off of the debt if we end up running against a period with a bond markets no wonder what thinks we are the

least ugly girl -- let me see, how do i rephrase that, senator portman? much better way to rephrase that. you know, we could be in a heap of trouble. i would a can recall my colleagues, it is one thing i keep drilling down on is, you know, federal spending at 25% of our gdp, all time high, revenue 15%, 70 year low. it seems to me, senator conrad and senator portman will correct me if i'm wrong, the only times we have been in rougher budget balance in the last 70 years was when revenue spending between 19 and 21%, somewhere in that range. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you've got to cut spending and generate revenues to i hope as we go forward on this discussion the three things that i would hope that we were gone beyond kind of moving off this train and updating it, one would become and i would get enormous,

enormous credit to senator crapo and senator coburn on this is that if we were to able to put together a long-term plan, you've got to have a real enforcement mechanism. so if the economy recovers both on the spending side and on the revenue side, there's no way to weigh those budget orders are slipping anything late at night. i would argue our offer for the committee's consideration the very, very good work with the assistance of senator conrad put in on about as tight a straitjacket you can imagine making sure spending caps are not done away with the i'm not even sure lindsey graham could get 67 votes on most items, and so real spending enforcement. second, i have to tell you, i disagree with the president on the idea that if we are going to do on the revenue side that we

can solve this problem with only getting more revenues from the very top one or 2%. i believe that this is a national crisis, a special we all have to step up. i think i have to step up in a more responsible way, someone who is not even the top two, maybe even higher percent, but i think there's something wrong with 47% of americans don't pay any federal income tax. ..

>> but i think there's more to be done in the entitlement area. um, particularly around health care. we have to be a little more open to ideas that are a bit more controversial, and, you know, the one thing that simpson-bowles had that none of the subsequent other plans included, i guess, just because it was too, too radioactive, um, but i'm still all in with the budget plan that would include let's get a fix on social security as well on this. senator johnson and i have talked about the fact that in terms of actually fixing it, one of the easiest ones, you know, there's no blame here other than the doctors that we're living too long, a lot of it's just about math. so i commend the chairman and ranking member. wouldn't it be great if this budget committee, you know, rolled up its sleeves, and we wouldn't have to be called a

gang, and we actually came up with a product that might end up being the framework of how we get this great national, potential national tram off our -- tragedy off our backs. with that, i yield. >> i thank the senator. senator portman's recognized for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and let me start by saying that i respect the work that you and senator crapo and senator warner did on the gang of six and continue to do, and you've done so at some political risk. and yet you're not the budget committee, you know? and you don't have the ability to be able to do as we could do in the committee, take something to the floor for an up or down vote. we can do that with just 12 of us around this table. how many do we have right now? can we count you guys? [laughter]

we had 12 earlier. and then it's just a mere majority because, again, the budget act provides for this special, expedited and mere majority consideration of a budget proposal that comes out of this committee. so i think that's what we ought to be doing, and i actually think senator begich and then senator warner following him made the case as well as anybody i've heard today about why it's important to have a budget. although senator begich isn't here to defend himself, i think he was kind of saying that bca provides some of the budget discipline that is necessary on discretionary spending. he also talked about the need for a long-term plan and a blueprint for the future. and if you think about it, i mean, over 60% of the budget this year is mandatory spending and interest on the debt. so just looking at it in those terms, hard to say that bca even if it was a ten-year plan, not a

plan for a year and then look at it again next year is a plan that gets at our problem, but also happens to be the fastest-growing part of our budget, the mandatory side. so, look, it's noted here, it's been a thousand days since the senate last enacting a budge. $4 trillion later, here we are. not saying that's the only reason, but it sure would be nice to have a plan. by the way, during that time more than $33,000 in new debt for every household in ohio, in north dakota and all of our states. so i think everything i've heard today, and i've listened carefully to everybody, argues for us to come up with a blueprint, and i commend the chairman for moving through the process. i liked your comprehensive presentation this afternoon. charts and all. i didn't agree with everything that you said toward the end when you got into is substance

of the proposal. but i think you laid out the problem well and, frankly, i think senator sessions did the same thing. i think you all agree with the problem. and you have a little different ideas on the solutions. i will tend to agree more with senator sessions on some of the issues, but we should have that debate, and we should have the amendment process here in this committee and then take it to the floor. um, i like the tax reform proposals you have in there, the federal retirement program reforms you talked about, i think it's a step in the right direction. the tax increases, you know, as part of tax reform, i actually as i analyze it it's closer to three and a half trillion, you say it's 2.4 trillion. that's a debate and a discussion we ought to have. like simpson-bowles, i'm concerned it doesn't get at the health care spending costs, in particular the new costs that have been incurred because of our new federal health care legislation that is going to cost trillions more over the next ten years, and we see higher numbers seems like every

other week now. senator whitehouse talked about that earlier, his concern that we aren't really getting at the core issue with spending when you include medicare, medicaid and the costs of the new health care bill to the federal government. so that being said, i do have some concerns, but if this is the proposal that the chairman's putting forward, um, i think we ought to use it as a starting point for the committee and go ahead and mark it up. and, again, all we need is 12 votes to get it to the floor. once we get it to the floor, people talked about a vote-a-rama and how that could be political. well, it's always political in this place. ultimately, we'd have to vote, you know, we'd have to come down one way or the other. to with the $15 trillion national debt, on course to add about another ten during the next decade with the president's budget about 11, with 10,000 of us americans retiring a day now

and moving into social security and medicare systems that are headed toward bankruptcy if we don't make these reforms, um, it's time to act. people talked a little bit today about what's going to happen at year end. we had this confluence of sequestration and a four and a half to five trillion dollar tax increase debt limit again, you know, the secretary of defense has called the defense cuts catastrophic. he said it would hollow out the force. so, again, senate budget committee should provide some fiscal direction here with a blueprint, and we should do it now because it is such a critical time. the house didn't do its job. there's been a lot of talk about that, some members on the other side criticized the house budget. that's their right to do it. but they should also acknowledge that they actually wrote a budget, voted on it. a lot of amendments on the floor, it's interesting, actually, they had several budget proposals.

i think they had seven that they votedden o. and they -- voted on. and they covered the political spectrum. and there was debate, there was argument. people disagreed with each other, but in the end they called a vote, and they passed a budget for the unite of america. and be if we would do something get something into rches conference, we would have that blueprint. we missed the deadline of april 1st and for our committee april 15th for the full house, that's meaning that we've already missed our statutory deadlines, but that's okay. we can still move forward. and i think it's time for us to do it. we need to be sure as we're doing this we think about its impact on the economy, and i think we have some disagreement on that. some folks in this committee have made the point that we can't cut much now because if we do, it'll slow the economic recovery which is a weak recovery, the weakest since the great depression if you look at

the lack of jobs. i would argue just the opposite. it's all the more reason to do it, to add certainty and predictability and be to be able to give our economy a needed shot in the arm through some of these reforms we've talked about today including tax reform which is one of the few ways economists agree we could help stimulate growth. senate -- senator begich talked about that at some length before senator wyden got here, he took credit for your legislation. [laughter] it's true they have to do with setting policy, and that's primarily in the area of tax reform. so we need that fiscal blueprint. i think the chairman's budget could be a first step. i urge him to move forward with it, let us have the debate here in committee, let us see if we can find 12 votes, take it to the floor and challenge the senate to stop abdicating it responsibility. >> i thank the senator. senator widen is recognized for a statement. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman. and to you, mr. chairman, ranking member senator sessions and colleagues, i feel badly about coming so late. we just had a hearing on global trade opportunities, a key part of our job engine in the finance committee, and that's why, you know, i've been late coming. with respect to my sense of where we are, pretty clear to me that what we have to find are big solutions for big economic challenges. and the history of all of those kinds of approaches, big solutions for big challenges, means you have to come up with a way to fashion bipartisan approaches. when we achieve meaningful, pro-growth tax reform, you had a republican president fighting for it working with democratic colleagues signing it into haw in 986. -- into law in 1986. when we were talking about reserving the social safety net

for senior citizens, president johnson championed it, pushed it through the congress with a huge bipartisan majority in 1965. so we have, mr. chairman ask and colleagues, two concrete exampleses of major solutions, solutions for the ages that were achieved in a bipartisan kind of fashion. pro-growth tax reform president reagan and democrats from 1986, huge opportunity, you know, consummated by president johnson in 1965 in terms of the social safety net, both with a pretty clear, bipartisan approach from day one. and there is a reason why this approach is the way to go, because if you try to tackle big issues in a strictly partisan way and you somehow manage to drive it actually through the congress and get it signed into law, there is not the bipartisan consensus that insures you can keep it.

and, in fact, history shows that when you do it that way, almost as soon as the ink is dry on a particular partisan achievement, efforts are made to unravel it. so my sense is we've got some very big opportunities, and i just want to outline a couple of them. first, with respect to pro-growth tax reform, i'm very pleased senator begich talked about it. senator coats, senator gregg, senator sessions and i have talked about this. we have an understanding of what needs to be done. you have to go in there and choice out a huge array of those loopholes, use those same dollars to hold down rates for everybody and keep progressivity. when we did this in 1986, we created according to the bureau of labor statistics 6.3 million new jobs within two years. and i'm not going to say, mr. chairman and colleagues, that every one of those jobs came about through tax reform.

but it certainly didn't hurt in terms of setting the climate for growth. and now since 1986 we've had a host of commissions that have essentially said the same thing. the commission that was put together by george w. bush essentially proposed a updated version of what was done in 1986, the volcker commission proposed the same thing, bowles-simpson. we all sat in this room and i was, frankly, thrilled when erskine bowles said we pretty much looked at what senator gregg and i had been talking about, and we know what needs to be done, the question is whether we can muster the political will the do to do -- to do it. but in terms of the benefits to the country, having a precedent where we've actually done it to help create 6.3 million new jobs within two years sounds like a pretty attractive way to

proceed. with respect to medicare, mr. chairman, it is clear the challenge is to protect the medicare guarantee. this is what it's all about, protecting the medicare guarantee. since my days when i had a full head of hair and rugged good looks and was the director of the senior citizens programs, i've always seen this program sacred ground. and we know from the trustees that run the program in a decade we're not going to have the funds to insure that that medicare guarantee is protected. once again, i think we have an opportunity to come together. i'm attracted to the concept of premium support. premium support is not something that has been rejected which is the concept of medicare vouchers. medicare vouchers are rejected because they're kind of like coupons. you give somebody a coupon that doesn't keep up with their health care costs, and that's clearly not acceptable.

premium support which originated with democrats and now has been picked up by both democrats and republicans across the political spectrum is something very different. unlike vouchers which don't keep up with medical costs, a senior's specific contribution under medicare is tiered to the actual health costs they incur in a given area. so it would be tiered in terms of the contribution to a senior's costs in north dakota or alabama or anywhere else. it's not a coupon, it's varied in relation to the actual cost that a senior has in a given area. if we do it that way, mr. chairman, i think we then have a chance to insure for all time the vitality of traditional medicare, and traditional medicare and the new options,

the various kinds of other alternatives that emerge, they will make the two, in effect, strengthen each other. you will have a stronger traditional medicare program, and you will have choice much as seniors have today in communities like my own where more than 50% are already choosing these various kinds of alternatives. so that, colleagues is a little bit of what i think is in front of us. it's pretty clear this is all about seizing the moment, and maybe it's not all going to come about today. maybe we're not going to get it all done tomorrow or the next day. but i think we have a sense of what needs to be done. i've been pleased to have a chance to participate in bipartisan efforts now for close to a decade in terms of pro-growth, bipartisan, you know, tax reform and a plan for

protecting the medicare guarantee for all time. and i think we've got a path to address both issues which are essentially driving this economy and driving the budget in a bipartisan fashion. and i just want however tardy i am for the day, mr. chairman, to say how much i look forward to working with you and senator sessions and, frankly, i look up and down the line, and i know colleagues who have logged a lot of time in these bipartisan precincts, and big solutions for big economic challenges are going the take that bipartisan effort the way both president johnson and president reagan showed it decades ago, and i think it's time to step up and do it again. >> thank the senator. senator toomey is recognized for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. well, i find it difficult to fully express how disappointed i am with where we are and what i'm hearing today. i think you did a very

reasonable job laying out the nature of the fiscal crisis we face, the unprecedented proportions of this crisis and correctly observed that we desperately need a long-term budget plan. i've heard many people repeat that. the fact is, republicans have offered this plan, and with the exception of the chairman, democrats are unwilling to vote. this is a stark contrast. i don't think there's any avoiding it. the house has passed a plan, and you can argue all you like and disagree, and that's all fine and fair, but they laid out a vision, and it's a man that would put us on a sustainable fiscal path. i think that's indisputable. and from my point of view, um, an elected member of congress really doesn't have very much credibility taking pot shots at these plans if they're not willing to offer an alternative. i think it's totally unacceptable. for either party to simply say, well, we're opposed to that, but we're not going to suggest

thinking in the alternative. that's why i give you a lot of credit, mr. chairman, for laying out a plan. and be i can't believe that we're in an environment, we're in a situation today and, apparently, tomorrow if this continues where our democratic colleagues are simply afraid to cast a vote, afraid to tell us whether they even support this plan. on our side i don't think that's the case. in fact, several of us have drafted our own plans. i put an enormous amount of time and energy and work as did my staff in producing for a second consecutive year a comprehensive budget resolution. this reflects the thinking of many of my republican colleagues, many democratic ideas that are embodied in this and plenty of ideas from the outside. i'm sure it's got all kinds of flaws, but it's a vision that gets us to a balanced budget, it accomplishes a number of things, and i think we ought to be debating it, amending it, casting vote on it. i think my colleagues on this side are willing to do that.

actually, we voted last year on something very similar to this and almost all my republican colleagues voted for it. and i understand the opposition that came from the other side. but of where was the alternative? i just can't believe that someone would suggest to the american people that they ought to be the majority party in control of the united states senate and not feel an obligation to lay out a plan that solves the biggest problem this country faces which is the unsustainable fiscal crisis that we're in. but that's, that's what we're hearing, that's what we see today. so, mr. chairman, i think your frustration must be enormous, it's probably maybe even greater than mine. but i want to walk through a few of the big ideas that i've wrestled with, that i've laid out in this budget resolution to illustrate just how frustrating this is not to have a counterpart that should be a negotiating counterpart, but one that's unwilling to take a stand on anything and, therefore, makes it very hard to negotiate.

for instance, one of the things that i think is important, demonstrate a way we can reach a balance within a ten-year window. it's not easy to do that. you have to make painful decisions. and we could have a reasonable argument about whether that ease even necessary. i think many on the other side probably think that's not necessary to balance the budget. i happen to think it is a worthwhile goal, and we ought to get there within some reasonable time frame. but we'll never know if we don't have people who are willing to say, here's a different idea, here's a better idea, here's an alternative. because we have this silence from the other side. on tax reform i actually think there's a lot of common ground at least in principle. i know there is with senatorwideen, i know there is with mr. chairman. my parameters would lay out the kind of simplification and pro-growth tax reform that have

been called for by bipartisan commissions, lowering marginal rates, offsetting lost revenue, and we could have a are robust discussion about exactly how we should do that and whether, in fact, that's the right thing to do, but what do we have from the other side? unwillingness to take a position. on medicare my budget calls for the implementation after ten years of the bipartisan plan that senator wyden just discussed, and i, frankly, think that's a very, very constructive idea that puts us on a long-term solution for medicare. not the only one, but it's a solution. it works. in the meantime, i've suggested in the budget that folks who are on medicare now and whose income is less than clash 85,000 -- $85,000 would have no change whatsoever, but if your income's over $85,000, i suggested we

implement president obama's suggest whereby those relatively affluent seniors would pay a little bit more. and if your income is above $150,000 as a retiree, guess what? you're pretty wealthy. for those folks, i've suggested they contribute even more than the president has suggested they contribute. now, i don't know whether there's agreement on the other side, and i guess i never will if people aren't willing to take a stand and say here's what i'm for. we've been handgun to offer ideas, proposal -- we've been willing to offer ideas, proposals, i'm sure they're not perfect. but it's very hard, you know, i hear people say i hope we'll come together and reach an agreement. well, if one side won't tell us what they're for, it's really, really hard to find out where the common ground is. so i just want to say, mr. chairman, i am extremely disappointed. i think we are here today witnessing a profound abdication of responsibility, a huge lost

opportunity. this is the opportunity today to thrash out, to work out, to find the common ground so that we could have the long-term solution that e all know we need -- we all know we need, and we're choosing not to do it. so i'm very disappointed. >> when i thank the senator. senator merkley is recognized for a statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. a budget is a statement that lays out a guide where we as a country are going over the years to come, and in setting our budget we need to think long and hard and answer key questions that will determine our path. will we be spending money nation-building abroad or nation-building at home? that is, will we be investing in education and infrastructure here in america? will we be granting bonus benefits to millionaires and

billionaires? or will we be caring for our veterans, our seniors, the homeless, the hungry? will we be investing in clean energy research that'll help us end our addiction to foreign oil? will we invest in s.t.e.m. education, science, technology, engineering,. mathematics, that's ferrell in to the next generation of those who will do the research and build the products that build the american economy? will we fund the agent is sayses that crack down on oil speculation or not? will we fund the agencies that keep our air and water clean or not? will we fund the agencies that enforce our trade laws or not? we have to be responsible for the answers we give, and in the course of this discussion it's very important to understand how we came into the current sea of red ink. wars in iraq and afghanistan, unpaid for. bush era tax cuts, unpaid for.

medicare part d drug plan, unpaid for. and then on to have of all that -- on top of that, the deregulation of the home financial sectors. result? predatory loans surged, bogus aaa securities proliferated, multitrillion dollar insurance try going by the fancy name of swaps and derivatives sprang up from nothing to a $50 trillion business in a short period of time. and did so without the oversight, the diversity of the reserves that are essential in insurance. all these things creating the biggest bubble and the biggest meltdown since the great depression. based on decisions that were made here. and, members around this table many of whom participated in. so how do we rebuild from here? that's the question of a budget. do we do so on the backs of

working people? the very same folks who are pressed by the high-interest predatory loans, who are pressed by the collapse of their home prices, who are pressed by the loss of living-wage jobs, who are pressed by destruction of their retirement accounts. are these the folks that deregulated the humble home mortgage? are these the folks who failed to pay attention to the unrated swaps and derivatives? are these the folks who were involved in the securities industry? i don't think so. so here are some better ideas. how about we end the war in afghanistan and split the proceeds, $120 billion a year we're spending right now, three ways; a third to paying down the deficit, a third to investing in our infrastructure, a third to investing in education? how about we end some huge

special interest programs in the tax code that waste taxpayer dollars. we voted on one on the floor of the senate just a couple weeks ago. costs billions of dollars a year, but the powerful, big oil company simply put in the bank, they're stating on more than -- sitting on more than $50 billion in the bank right now. and i was very fascinated by speeches that said, you know what? we can't close one tax loophole unless we close them all. by folks who realized that they weren't at all prepared to take on the task of closing those tax loopholes. how about we eliminate the $175 billion in defense programs that robert gates said don't contribute one bit to national security? how about we end our addiction to foreign oil that's costing us a billion dollars a day? it's creating jobs and wealth

overseas. how about we spend those energy dollars here in the united states and create wealth and jobs here in america. it's a triple win; improvement in national security, improvement in jobs, improvement in clean air. how about we recognize that we are systematically undermining the national security of this country through our failure to invest in infrastructure and our failure to invest in education. china's spend 10g % of its gdp, europe 5% of its gdp on infrastructure, and we're spending 3%. and we're having a debate whether we continue it or we take the house plan that cuts 35% out of our infrastructure transportation spending. that is not a debate that is going to take us forward to a strong economy in the future. how about we address the fact

that we've lost five million manufacturing jobs here in the last ten years, and that's five million living-wage jobs that ordinary families don't have. often jobs with benefits. and how about we rebuild that manufacturing economy so there will be a middle class in america, because if we don't make things here, we won't have a middle class. these are the type of issues that are embedded in the decisions that we make around a budget. that is the task before this committee. i thank you, mr. chairman, for calling us to this table to deliberate these incredibly important issues to the future of our nation. thank you. >> i thank the senator. senator johnson is recognized for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's always fun going toward the end here, you have to remain somewhat flexible, try not to repeat what some of my

colleagues have said. first of all, i am sympathetic with your predicament, mr. chairman. i know you actually do understand the problem, i know you've worked hard, and i've appreciated a number of the hearings that have been educational. i mean, let's face it, this is a political process here. it's our obligation to inform, to persuade, i think to win the argument. but i think the american people also deserve a choice, and they can't make that choice if one side refuses to put their plan on the table, if one side simply refuses to vote for what they're for, if one side simply refuses to pass anything. i've listened to a number of words i've heard, and i kind of want to react to them. the first one is responsibility. i know when i was elected, i told the voters of wisconsin it's an awesome responsibility. it's one i take very seriously. and it's the responsibility of this committee to pass a budget

resolution by april 1st, and of the united states senate to pass a budget by april 15th. did i say august 1st? i mean april 1st. then april 15th. that's the responsibility. we should take it seriousliment seriousliment -- seriously. i know, mr. chairman, you staid this might be the wrong time to vote on a plan. it is the wrong time. we should have been voting it back in march. that's what the house did. two years in a row now the house has met its responsibility. they subject for themself to be accountable to the american people. we refuse to do that here in the senate. senator warner mentioned the word "embarrassment." we should be embarrassed. the american people deserve far better. we need to provide some leadership in this country. americans hunger for leadership. it's getting none. when the president proposes four

budgets ands has yet to propose anything to save social security which, by the way, by the year 2035 will have a cash deficit of $6 trillion, no proposal to save medicare. we've heard last year's budget lost 0-97 in the senate. so unserious did not one of the president's own party vote for it. now 0-414 in the house. the american people need to understand what an abdication of responsibility that is, what an abdication to leadership that is. but how can they make a choice? they don't know what the other side is for. we know a few things the other side is for. they want to take over one-sixth of our economy. i guess they've okay with government outlays 24% of gdp. i guess they're okay with $5.3

trillion worth of deficits during the term of this president. i guess they're okay with 1.4, 1.3, 1.3 and now another $1.3 trillion deficit the last four years. during this president's term, we will spend $14.4 trillion. the total deficit during that period will be 5.3, about 37%. thirty cents of every dollar is what we are borrowing. the american people te serve far better. -- deserve far better. and when you take a look at the president's budget that lost 0-414, he's going to add somewhere around 10-$11 trillion to our debt, but that doesn't even fully state the problem. the one thing, mr. chairman, that we share is i enjoy charts. and i just want to, in many wrapping up here, talk about three, i think, very significant

significant -- [inaudible] that could explore our deficit even further from what the president is proposing. if we miss the president's growth target by 3%, the cbo said we could add $3.1 trillion to our nation's debt over the next ten years. interest rates. here's my one chart i'll impose on you here. i took a look historically, what the average borrowing costs of the united states has been. from 1970 through 1999, we've had an average borrowing cost of 5.3%. the last three years we've been borrowing at an unrealistically low 1.5%. now, during those 30 years at 5.3%, our debt to gdp ratio was about 60%. we were far more creditworthy. now our debt to gdp ratio's over 100%. that's about a 4% gap from hi to

havic -- historic. four percentage points would be $600 billion a year, 60% of discretionary spending. that's a significant risk. and, of course, a few weeks ago we debated the health care law in the supreme court. let's hope that's overturned because that represents a significant deficit risk that nobody's acknowledging. if you take a look at real spending -- not just the six years from the first ten-year budget window, but once obamacare actually kicks in starting 2016 -- over the next ten years we'll spend $2.4 trillion on that program. now, it's going to be paid for with roughly $500 billion worth of taxes, fees and penalties and $500 billion worth of medicare cuts. now, we haven't enacted the sjr fix of $208 billion because we realize that that will reduce access.

what does, what makes anybody believe we'll reduce medicare by $520 billion? move it forward ten years? if you grow that $500 billion in fees and penalties, that might grow to 800 billion versus $2.4 trillion in spending. that represents about a $1.6 trillion deficit gap or $1.6 trillion that you're going to have to cut from medicare. is that going to happen? and i'm not even mentioning -- i guess i am now -- the cost when tens of millions of employers or employers drop tens of millions of individuals from their employer-sponsored care, make them eligible for huge subsidies in the exchanges. what's that going to cost? so we've got some very significant problems in this country and, mr. chairman, i certainly appreciate your opening presentation laying out the case, but it doesn't even scratch the surface. we have far each greater risks

and, again, we have one side in washington that refuses to take a vote, refuses to tell the american people what their solution is. until that side does that, until this president leads or until we have a president that is willing to lead, we're not going to fix this problem. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the senator. >> thank you, chairman conrad, for putting this plan in front of us and for having this session today. i apologize for my late arrival. i was chairing a subcommittee hearing in the foreign relations committee. >> [inaudible] >> when i'm home in delaware no matter where i go, people ask me about our deficits and debt, and it is something that matters deeply to the average american because they're used to in their families and businesses having to balance their budgets, live within their means, and they

expect their government will do the same. i could give a long speech recounting how we got here and who's responsible and assigning blame and, essentially, delivering a campaign speech, but instead i'd rather focus, if i can, on what i think we all have in common today around this table. in my previous role as a county executive, my job was in large part to find ways to balance the budget every year, to deal with record deficits, to rein in spending, to make unpopular and difficult decisions and, ultimately, deliver surplus. i know things are a lot more complicated here at the federal level as we have learned very quickly and that our national debt at over $15 trillion which took us a decade to earn our way into, presidents of both parties, congresses controlled by both parties will take us a while to our way out of -- to work our way out of. but i think we all agree, our excessive debt, our record debt and deficits hurt our competitiveness, hurt our economy, hurt our families, hurt

our country. i think we all agree this is a ticking time bomb that needs to be addressed. we have budget caps, mr. chairman, as you've presented that give the appropriations committees guy dance for this year and next, and we need a land. and rather than having another partisan wish list presented that we can fight over, i am pleased that you put forward a tough, balanced, broad plan that gets us down the road towards the very real decisions we have to make. debts and deficits are not a new development, mr. chairman. the whole time that you've served in the senate, it has been a real challenge for both parties n. the last 40 years, i think only four federal budgets have been balanced. the path of least resistance for a general ration has been to keep -- generation to keep revenues low and services high and not deal with the gap, but i think we are at a day of reckoning, and it is my very real hope that this committee and its members will be serious. maybe off camera, maybe individually, maybe collectively

about working hard towards finding the very real solutions we need. as i think senator warner previously commented, whatever bipartisan compromise is ultimately reached to solve this problem, it will be difficult, it will be painful, and it will need a real enforcement mechanism. one i try today advance -- tried to advance months ago was save-go, i think a widely-agreed-upon target. save go is something that the bipartisan policy center advocated that i endorsed and i sought repeatedly folks to join me in moving forward. regardless of which party, regardless of which view, i think all of us can agree we have to find way forward that doesn't eviscerate our safety net, that asks for broadly-shared sacrifice, that doesn't jeopardize our fragile recovery and that retains highly-effective, long-supported programs. i believe we can do that with a balanced approach. and so, mr. chairman, i'm

pleased that you put on the table today a tough, long-term plan that takes from all the different areas where we need to make changes, that achieves revenue growth through tax reform, that reduces both discretionary domestic spending and pentagon spending and that begins to deal with our most difficult long-term deficit and debt drivers. i was pleased that this commission presented their tough plan, that the gang of six worked hard on trying to turn it into legislative language and was happy to join the 45 senators who publicly support a long-term deficit reduction plan that is balanced in its approach. let me be clear, there are things in this plan that i really dislike, that i oppose -- [laughter] that i think are not only not perfect, i think are bad policy and i think would cause needless harm to programs, people and sectors of our society that i advocate for and i care strongly about. i would like to see a final plan that prior toizes -- prioritizes

infrastructure, education, energy, many of of the things senator merkley spoke about. i'll simply close by saying thank you for putting this land out. i hope we will take the time as a group diligently to wrestle with value choices and to, together, reach a tough plan that will allow us before the end of this calendar year to cast the votes we need to cast to change the path of this country. thank you. >> i thank the senator. senator -- [inaudible] recognized for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm very sympathetic to the plight of the chairman, know that he's very serious about these issues, appreciate that he worked with my predecessor who i know is very serious about the fiscal state of the country. but i feel like the chairman is in a position where he's like charlie brown, and lucy -- meaning his leadership, the majority leader, harry reid -- has pulled the football from him

for what we need to do in this committee which is not just presenting a plan out there for us to all be here today and give very eloquent opening statements about on both sides of the aisle, but to really roll up our sleeves and take the hard votes on the plan and the amendments and the things we like and we don't like about it and be willing to go home and tell our constituents why we took those votes to put together a fiscal blueprint for this country. and i can't tell you how excited i was to be put on the budget committee because of the important work that my predecessor did on this committee, much of it with you, chairman, and others on this committee. but i've been incredibly, incredibly disappointed, and it's very difficult for me to go home to people of new hampshire who i think, like all of our constituents, have great common sense because they're dealing with a tough fiscal environment at home, they understand that

they've got money coming in. it's less money than they had before in many instances, and sometimes it's more bills. but they sit down, and they figure it out, and they balance their budget. and we know that not only they do it, but every business in this country does it. when you served at the county government, you had to put forward a budget, and you did it, and be you made the hard choices. and yet here in congress i think they look at us, and they look at the senate as a place where, unfortunately, there's been a complete failure of leadership because you can have the best laid plans, but if you look at the time that this committee has not been doing what we should be doing -- and i know that it's not be because of the chairman, but because it's really a failure, i think, from the overall leadership, the majority in the senate to say go do what you were set out to do in the

budget committee to put forward the blueprint, the budget work. because i've been here on this budget committee for over 700 days, you know? never done a markup. i don't know what it's like. i'd love to do a markup. i'm willing to make the tough calls, take tough votes and go defend them to my constituents, but that just doesn't happen around here. i just makes too much sense. and with no other plan that if you aren't willing to back up what you have to put forward around here by your actions and willing to take the votes, then no point in just having a plan floating out there without the courage of your convictions to be able to back it up with a hard vote. that's what we were sent here to do for the american people, and rightly so. that's what they expect of us. so i would share the sentiment of my colleagues, i think on both sides of the aisle. this is incredibly disappointing given the fiscal crisis that

this country faces. because i got off my couch and decided to run for the united states senate because i've got two children, i have a 4-year-old and a 7-year-old, and i know that if we don't get this right now, it's not just about everyone else in this room, but we are passing on massive amounts of debt and diminished opportunity to the next generation. and i don't want ever want to look at -- i don't ever want to look at my children, because i know they're going to say, mom, what did you do about it? so i want this committee to actually take votes and to do what is right for this country. and i hope, i appreciate that the chairman wants to do it, and i don't want you to be charlie brown, i do not want the football to be taken away from you anymore. because we can't afford to continue where we are in this country. and you know what? we better put it on the line and make some decisions and make the tough calls to get our fiscal house in order. because you think about it, if

every hearing we have that was sort of a political hearing around here, i call these political sham hearings where we're trying to prove a political point instead of solving a problem around here, if we were able to take every single one of those hearings and we were actually working on the real problems facing this country, we'd have a balanced budget right now. if we pent our time doing -- if we spent our time doing that. and that's what the american people deserve. and we need to be accountable to them. and i think at the end of the day, right now, we should be ashamed that we aren't marking up a budget to take the votes here. and i think it's a failure of leadership. thank you. >> i thank the senator. senator sessions? final thoughts for today? >> well, yes, mr. chairman. i think you can tell that the members on our side like you, we appreciate you, we like all of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on this committee,

and really i think it's a misperception among a lot of people in america we don't get along personally throughout the whole senate. but we do have some sincere, deep disagreements about what we're going to do. and i think we believe that you would have preferred a real markup today, not a faux markup. the fact is it's now three years, three years into the execution of a deliberate and determined policy by the democratic leadership in the united states senate to avoid responsibility for the financial future of america. it's not acceptable of the senate leadership to not face up to the challenge of our time, the debt crisis facing america. we have a long-term, systemic debt crisis that's not going away anytime soon. we have got to make changes. it dwarfs all other issues facing our country. it is, as admiral mullen the

chairman of joint chiefs said, the greatest threat to our national security. some may think it's smart when senator reid says it's foolish to have a budget and then to spend three years avoiding votes necessary to have a budget or lay out a financial plan for the future. but is it really okay to wait until after the election to vote? is that what the american people expect of us? are they satisfied that we say, oh, we can't take votes close to an election, that might be tough. oh, we don't want to do that, do we? i don't think so. i don't think that's where the american people's heads are. i think it's a big deal to fail the responsibility that we've been given as and honored to be senators. i think it's particularly wrong for the president to propose

nothing serious, for the democratic leadership in the senate to propose no plan, to try to block plans from coming up and then to criticize those who lay out plans that could change america and put us on the right path. so i don't think it's acceptable. i think a price will be paid for this failure, and i will just say one more thing. if lord allows this republican party to have a majority in the senate, we're going to do our best to be worthy of the responsibility given us, we're going to be, do everything within our power to produce a budget, one that can be reconciled with the house, a budget that will change the debt cows course of america -- debt course of america and place this country on a path to progress and prosperity and not to decline. thank you for all the things that you've done, mr. chairman,

the hard work you've put into understanding the challenges of america. the problem we have got is we're now willing to act on it. it's time for action. thank you very much. >> i thank the senator. i thank all of my colleagues today. let me indicate my own view because everyone else has expressed themself on this question. when i hear colleagues say there's been no budget put in place for a thousand days, i just don't think that's correct. i really don't. we passed last year the budget control act. the budget control act is not a resolution, the budget control act is a law. a resolution is purely a congressional document. it never goes to the president for his signature. the budget control act passed

both houses of congress and went to the president for his signature. the budget control act not only set the budget for this year and next -- and i just read the language from the budget control act -- the allocations, aggregates and levels shall apply in the senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012. that exact same language is repeated in the next paragraph for 2013. the budget control act law shall apply in the senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget. to suggest we have not put in place spending limits or spending restraint, i think, is misleading to people who are listening. i believe it is very clear in

the budget control act ha we passed -- that we passed a law that put in place spending limits not only for two years, but quite extraordinarily spending caps for ten years. i've been here 26 years. i have never seen a budget resolution put in place spending caps for more than three years. the budget control act put in place spending caps for ten years. in addition, the budget control act created a special committee with the obligation to come up with a plan for reforming social security, medicare and the tax system and told them if you are able to agree, you will be able to bring that proposal to the floor of the senate and not face a filibuster. be able to pass reforms to those programs on a simple majority vote.

and it further said if you can't agree, there will have to be an additional $1.3 -- $1.2 trillion of additional cutses in the so-called sequester. because the special committee did not agree, the $900 billion of savings under the budget control about are law as are the additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts created by the fact that the special committee could not agree on reforming medicare, and our tax system. that was a total package of over $2 trillion. of spending cuts. that is more than any package of spending cuts or spending restraint in the history of our country. where i do agree is what we

don't have; a long-term plan, a ten-year plan. we do have a budget for this year and next, spending restrictions in place for those two years. what we don't have is a long-term plan. that's why i spent a lot of time trying to figure out what i would take before this committee. at the end of the day, i decided to do what i deeply believe, and i deeply believe bowles-simpson -- however imperfect it is and there are lots of things there that i strenuously disagree with. i told my staff i'll never forget the morning of the vote in bowles-simpson. the only thing worse than being for this is being against it. because at least it gets our debt under control and gips to

bring it down -- begins to bring it down. and it does it in some kind of balanced way. i'd be the first to acknowledge we've got to make adjustments to it because things have happened in the interval. i would say this, also, to you, and i say this with sincerity: i don't believe that this is going to get resolved. i don't believe that all parties are going to get out of their fixed positions before an election. i wish we could, i wish we would. i don't see any evidence in my 26 years that that's going the happen. in fact, budget resolutions have not been done for a decade no matter who was in charge of the senate in an election year. the only time it has happened is the last time i became chairman, 2008 and i was able to get -- in an election year -- a budget

resolution. that's one reason -- >> and live now to this morning's playbook breakfast series by politico. majority leader eric cantor is the guest this morning, discussing some of the detail about the small business tax measure that'll be debated in the house today. >> what was the first politico office that you held? >> first political office that i held was being delegate in the 73rd district of virginia and the virginia house. >> and how is that similar to what you do now? [laughter] >> um, it's -- obviously, it's similar because premised upon sort of the confidence that voters give you and to be able to go and be reflect their views in a policy-making role, and i'll tell you, i started my, um, my political career based upon the experience i had as a small business person. and i was a real estate lawyer and a developer and ran a family business along with brothers, and, you know, faced the

challenges that most small businesses do every day. and so i brought that experience with me to the table at the state level, at the policy-making level interacting with regulators and the administration there in richmond trying to make it a little bit easier for entrepreneurs to succeed. >> what we're hearing from business people now is you run, help run a pretty big family business now, the house republican leadership. [laughter] and what we're hearing is that if there's not system sort of deficit deal, if we go up to the cliff again, that that could cause a slowdown on both the consumer side and the business side. how do you avoid that? >> well, i do think it is, you know, there's a lesson to have been learned from what happened last year. i mean, i think that the public expects results from washington. and i think a lot of us are very frustrated that we're unable to see the results we would have liked, and as you recall, speaker boehner put a sort of goal out there th