>> just to return to your comments on partnerships, i suspect -- nato is obviously in its military sense of mutual cooperation and mutual support. what is in it to the parter countries which contribute to in nato military intervention? >> thank you for the question. what would not be in the proposal is any obligation or expectation on the part of australia or new zealand or japan or south korea to have any responsibility going along with the nato treaty. your country would not be obligated to fight or train with us. it would be your call on a voluntary basis.

we noticed that every time a nato deploys australia is there's a friend and ally of the united states. we are not calling for australian membership. we are calling for a partnership to develop. australia trains more energetically with germany and britain and france. you already trained significantly with the united states. let's say there is another humanitarian disaster the way there was in december of 2004 what happened on december 26th, australia, united states and japan and india deployed together to help the people of sri lanka and southern india because we had trained together in the air and sea. we want that type of cooperation. you have been a stalwart ally in afghanistan but you had to do it on the run not having worked very much with the european allies. it is inculcating patterns of

cooperation and military training and confers no obligation on the part of parter countries. in essence it is the best of both worlds for the asia-pacific allies from my perspective. >> also hearing the most frequent complaint from australian officials is you are more than happy to use soldiers and resources in battle but we are not involved in the planning stage. we have problems and issues in our part of the world. if those two things could be resolved, it would be a qualitative finger in the relationship. >> i would agree with fred. you had to deploy to afghanistan and yet you had no say in that nature of that operation. it should be on the take off as a partner country putting your troops in harm's way.

two other countries, sweden and finland have been great partners. we wish to bring them into greater cooperation with nato because we are slow strong in northern europe. they need to be at the table not as members but having some say. we expect sweden and australia and japan. >> your name has been invoked. you want to raise questions or make a comment? >> thank you so much. is easier to be a dane than at german. please expand on what you want germany to do? to spend more or have global

ambition? you want german forces to the expeditionary? i haven't read the whole saying of the-we displace soft power for that. >> could germany be more political leader in the alliance? we have given a couple examples today. libya operations. in our judgment should have been beside your country and britain and france and norway. secondly germany is as i said before the most influential western country in the alliance in russia is germany. if we have a major strategic

challenge and that is a way to figure rum more effectively germany could be in a leadership role in that effort and it would be welcomed by the united states of america if that happened. political leadership we are not seeing. military leadership. nato said 30 years ago when jimmy carter was the president that all countries should spend 3% of their gross domestic product on defense, now we have lowered our ambition over the last couple decades to say 2%. just three of the 28 are spending on 2%. my country far in the league. is fundamentally unfair for the american people at a time of economic challenge to be spending 4.5% of gross domestic product on our defense when germany which is the healthier economic position is spending

one.3%. nato, fairness and the quality is important that thick, germany, we would suggest is not living up to its responsibility. germany did serve to send troop germany, we would suggest is not living up to its responsibility. germany did serve to send troops to northern afghanistan in -- we know germany suffered death and wounded and yet germany refused to redeploy its troops to where fighting was most intense. for the past clayton -- ten years it has been up to the dutch and canadians and gains and lithuanians and americans and bulgarians to fight the taliban at its greatest level of intensity and germany refused to redeploy its troops. the second-largest out of the

fight against the taliban has weakened our efforts so that military leadership -- >> time for one more question. >> i am from the polish embassy. let me comment on what was invoked here. let me try to respond. i am not sure i agree with the sentiment here that libya is some sort of metric over the commitment to the alliance. it was a very important operation but let me say -- publicly and literally -- first in iraq and then afghanistan and countries that took the caliban, doing this job in the gazni

province, the commitment of poland in afghanistan and also on the level of military spending matched by other allies. and we supported this operation in libya. allies will participate -- the origins of political oppression. we should take a broader view. thank you very much. >> let me take that question. sins this is the final question. if you could address that but at the same time address what is libya a model for?

it isn't necessarily a model for everyone in the alliance engaging in everything. people who talk about the small talk about more as a model of the alliance providing the infrastructure and capabilities for something members of the alliance in general support but not all want to participate in and participate as regional actors and that is the model you can move around. the question that was raised their, what is libya a model for? >> we're sitting with a former ambassador to poland to speaks far better than me but i am happy to thank poland's for all your leadership. you went into iraq and you were with us in afghanistan. poland without any question of the ten countries that commit to nato sins 1997 poland is at the center. we really value the role that

poland plays. with the greatest of respect, it was a missed opportunity in our judgment for poland not to more vigorously support nato allies politically as well as militarily. certainly because germany was a member of the security council -- was a bitter disappointment for europeans and americans. i would just say in conclusion to this question, libya is probably not a template for everything we do in the future. it was a very useful reminder that we are all in this together. i thought president obama was right that a time when we were clearly preoccupied with the withdrawal from iraq and this difficult war in afghanistan and

our own domestic and economic problems it was good to see europe take a leadership role for the first time in the history of the nato alliance. i don't think it is the templates because those situations will be quite rare. my own view is we are the leader of the alliance. we have to lead it. if some of our members like britain and france decided this is vital for them i prefer the united states to be fighting with the alliance than absent. we played a critical supporting role and that is to the honor of the united states but i don't see it as much of the templates because i can't imagine many situations when the united states will want to separate itself from europe. we need to lead. we need to repeat nato needs the energetic leadership of the united states. that is the most important national message. is not aimed at the current administration because president

obama is a great leader and at our congressional leaders, who need to fully fund our military and diplomacy as we go ahead. >> ambassador nicholas burns. valuable papers ask act acus.or. very important discussion. what is most import about the discussion, these are all issues that are going to stay with us. very glad you touched on them because it is all about leadership. on behalf of the audience as well. [applause] >> reading has become over the last two hundred years the

ultimate democratic act of the ultimate democratic country because it makes it possible for the many to teach themselves what the a few once held close. the president can quote mark twain because he has read huck finn and the postman can the understand reference because he has read akin too. the demagoguery those still possible require a lot more self and cleverness because with careful reading of books and newspapers and material on the internet, their flaws are revealed to ordinary people like us. wasn't for nothing that the nazis made bonfires of books. >> in 1992, anna quinlan won the pulitzer prize for her topics. you can talk to the best-selling author on booktv sunday june fare on c-span2's in death. get a head start by watching other comments over the years

that the c-span video library. and her life in journalism all searchable. at the c-span video library. >> this memorial day we will go to colleges and universities severe commencement addresses from members of congress and the cabinet and local leaders and business executives and we want to hear from you about your commencement experience. the you graduate from college this year or attend a ceremony for a friend or family member or something about a past commencements it's with you? we want to hear from you. tell us your story 202-643-3011. we may use your comments on the air. >> when people are saying to him, take the vice presidency,

right now you are a powerful majority leader. don't take the vice presidency. you won't have any power. johnson says power is where power goes. i can make power in any situation. his whole life, nothing in his life previously makes that seem -- that is exactly what he had done all his life. >> the conclusion of our conversation with robert caro on the passage of power on the years of lyndon johnson. his multi volume biography of the 36 president on c-span's q&a. >> this morning a house financial service subcommittee looking to large financial institutions and whether some are too big to fail. treasury and federal reserve officials with the economists testify at a hearing that begins at 10:00 eastern time. we will have live coverage on

c-span3 and c-span.org. >> on this wednesday morning both the house and senate will gavel in today. the house starts at 10:00. legislative business gets underway at noon eastern. on the agenda today a bill on violence against women and another concerning the national flood insurance program. you can see the house live on c-span. the senate starts at 9:30 about 15 minutes from now. lawmakers will take up five separate budget resolutions including the house version and president obama's budget. all those expected today before 4:00 eastern. you can see the senate live on c-span2. up next senate environment and public works committee chair barbara boxer said she is optimistic the house and senate conference committee will come to a agreement on a conference a -- surface bill. this will be weekly update on the bill's progress until work is done.

just over 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> hi, everybody. i want to complete this before i have to go down for the next vote. at the opening of the surface transportation bill conference on may 8th i said i did regular updates and so here i am to talk about progress. i am not going to be addressing specific negotiations between the conferees but i can tell you we have moved have the organizational stage and had 20 hours of meetings staff to staff and we are now working on the substance of the bill. staff has been meeting every day on all the issues.

we broke down into groups roughly center around our committees. for example, obviously you have senator baucus working on this and senator rockefeller's transportation safety and myself on the core bill, highways, bridges, the banking committee dealing with transit and the other issues we have broken down. other issues leaders and restore act and excel the payments and lower taxes and various items will be handled by myself and senator baucus. that gives you a sense of the way we have broken it down. vice-chairman mica and i have

been in touch by phone and had meetings face-to-face on thursday. i will be briefing members this week. the process has been very inclusive and i expect that to lead to good results. every country involved from freshman to the most senior through the staff and thursday personal meetings and doing one on one discussions in my office, doing meetings with individual members who have specific issues they want to talk about. i am optimistic that we will reach agreement on this bill and the reason is we're starting from a very bipartisan senate bill which passed 74-22. it has many proposals the house supports including an expanded tifia which is a leveraging mechanism that will create a

million new jobs. we also have program consolidation we have given the states more flexibility. a lot of reforms. no earmarks. these are all things the house wants to see happen as well. the conference was up and running in record time because this bill is so important to our workers, our business and our economy and we have a deadline. that is critical. that is when the current transportation extension expires and we all know these extensions are really a death knell for jobs and businesses in our country. there's another reason i am quite optimistic about this and i will wait it out to you. two days ago, there was an op-ed piece in politico and they wrote a powerful piece that i think speaks to every member and they

talk about -- quoting draconian cuts to the budget are dangerous and destructive to transit systems that are in need of significant upgrades and talk about the disarray of the infrastructure. they say without a successful highway conference, they say congress would have to cut highway transit safety programs by 60% according to analysis by the american association of state highway and transportation officials. it couldn't be stronger and i strongly suggest we might take a look at this op-ed piece that ran on the thirteenth of may. they are very clear. they talk about how giving all the authority to the state's net network. that is the reason i am optimistic because obviously we have the vast majority of

democrats in favor of the senate bill and we have a tremendous support of republicans in the senate and we have to persuade the house republicans and the chamber of commerce has been supportive of house republicans in every way you can think of. in addition, hot off the press, five minute ago or ten minutes ago a historic letter. we have copies for you. a communication to the conference on the reauthorization of the surface transportation program. i will tell you the list of these groups is almost unheard of that some of these groups would be on the same letter and a few listen to these names and you hear the message you will see why i am optimistic we will get a conference report. first the message. on behalf of our respective organizations we urge you to complete work on map 21 by passing the conference report to

get a bill to the president before the entire transportation program expires on june 30th. this is a historic moment they write because the american economy is at risk and the nation is falling further behind on our infrastructure needs. the nation's economy is at a critical stage and this bill could be a major factor in strengthening our overall position in the world economy. they say a few more things and conclude. this legislation must be passed before the june 30th deadline to protect business and keep america on the cutting edge of transportation infrastructure development. i will tell you who signed this letter. the american association of state highway and transportation officials. the american trucking association. i had a meeting with them in my office. they are strongly behind this bill. the american society of civil

engineers. the association of equipment manufacturers. the american automobile association. the associated general contractors of america. the national travel association. american council of engineering companies. american road transportation builders' association. transportation for a department of the afl-cio. labor international union of north america. the chamber of commerce. national association of manufacturers. american public transportation association. american hy alliance. international turnpike association. the associated equipment distributors. these groups and all their logos are on this and i will make sure the members of the conference committee received this letter along with the op-ed chamber. i am working on a parallel strategy.

and inside strategy and one is an outside strategy. the inside strategy is to make sure everyone is involved and participates and everyone gets their questions answered. everyone gets to put their ideas on the table and the outside strategy is to continue to encourage these powerful and important organizations, to weigh in on this side of the bill. i am happy to take whatever questions you have. wait a second. i will be right there. >> members -- [inaudible] >> it will be. the house included the shell -- build. it is in the bill so it will be included. i fully support every part of the restore act. a few important act for the gulf states but also has oceans trust fund and it have the peace that

deals with the landing conservation water fund which is important to the country. i heard a woman's boys over here. where are you from? [inaudible] >> talk about the involvement -- [inaudible] >> i am not treating it any different. my door is open to everybody. i am having individual meetings with those who ask for those and reach out to me and a couple of those -- i am encouraged because of the two reasons. one, the fact that we do have this important coalition that is very active in their states and our states. we are all -- we have a lot on the line. i said this numerous times. forgive me if it is boring. always think of this as 12 stadium super bowl stadiums full

of people and they are all unemployed construction workers. that image in my mind drives me forward and i hope it is driving them forward too because everyone of us gets thousands of jobs from this bill and businesses will be saved and new businesses will spring up. every member of the committee has my deep respect. they got there because the leadership -- we are all working together and i have an open door to all including freshman. >> [inaudible] >> world school. very important. that is on one of the -- i am on that -- i am heading that working group with max baucus to get that done. i think -- something like that

has tremendous potential and restorer act has tremendous appeal. i really do believe that. it will help the engine to get over the line. tell us where you are from. high. >> your confidence that keystone won't be involved? >> i never said that. >> can you update us? >> we haven't gotten down to the areas of this agreement and we will and we will let you know. >> democrats live with the transportation act? >> we had a vote on keystone and didn't get 60 votes so we had to figure out a way to get through that hurdle and i think we will figure it out. but we haven't gotten down to that. what we are doing now is walking

through the bill and getting the areas of agreement. that is what we are doing. >> you had 60 votes. i thought -- >> they didn't need 60 votes. they didn't get it. >> conference report -- >> talking about the will of the senate. i am representing the senate. what i said from the start is if you load this up with controversy that can't get through either house we have to work together to find the sweet spot so we can get 60 votes >> remarks from senator barbara boxer on the highway bill yesterday. you can see those remarks on our web site. go to c-span.org. senator boxer will join her colleagues in the senate to work on the budget. this will take a five budget resolutions including the house 10 version and president obama's budget. those are expected at 3:45

eastern. now live to the senate floor on c-span2.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, sustainer of us all, give today to our senators reverence to realize your presence, humility to know their own needs, trust to ask you for help, and obedience to accept your guidance.

remind us all that all great things have their price. may we remember that there is no purity without vigilance, no friendship without loyalty, no joy without service, and no crown without a cross. help us to be willing to pay the price that we may enter into our reward. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god,

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., may 16, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 365, s. 2343. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 365, s. 2343, a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965 to extend the reduced interest rate for federal direct stafford loans, and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those, if any, of the republican leader, the senate

will begin debate on several motions to proceed to republican budget resolutions. consent was asked last night, i'm quite sure, that the time be, first hour be equally divided between the two leaders with the majority leader controlling the first half, the republicans the final half. that's already done, isn't it? the presiding officer: correct. mr. reid: there will be up to six hours of debate on the motion to proceed on these budget resolution. senators should expect five roll call votes around 4:00 p.m. if all time is used, and it probably will be. s. 3187 is due for a second reading, i'm told. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3187, a bill to amend the federal food, drug and cosmetic act and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president, i would object to any other proceedings with respect to this legislation at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the

calendar. mr. reid: madam president, it's almost universally acknowledged that republican obstructionism has reached new heights in the senate. there are separate articles written about it. there are even now books written about it. democrats would have to break a filibuster, i guess, to declare the sky blue or the earth is round, and passing the most commonsense legislation can take weeks or months. so with a mile-long list to do, we can't afford to waste any time. yet today republicans will force the senate to waste a day on political showboats. we'll spend hours debating and voting on a handful of nonbinding budget resolutions even though we've already had a legally binding budget. if one of the republicans' budgets ed passed, which it won, by law it's nonbinding. the senate could spend the day

passing tax cuts for small businesses that won't hire people or we could be considering the paycheck fairness act, training women to receive equal pay for equal work. we could be debating cybersecurity legislation, which the pentagon says is the number-one issue facing this country today, is cyberinsecurity. we could be working on a farm bill that senator stabenow and roberts have done such an outstanding job -- excuse me. saving the country $23 billion, reducing the debt by that much. we should be on that bill. or we could be protecting seven million students from rate hikes on their federal loans. we could even move a series of appropriations bill to implement the budget we've already enacted. instead we'll debate and vote on a series of budgets. republicans aren't interested in

getting anything done this year. they have said so from the very beginning. their leader, my friend from kentucky, has said the number-one issue is to defeat president obama. so they don't mind wasting a day of the senate's time on useless political showboats. republicans san say over and over they are only forcing votes on republican budgets today because democrats failed to pass their own budget. that couldn't be further from the truth. in august congress passed and president obama signed a budget that reduces the deficit by more than $2 trillion. it's called the budget control act. 28 republican senators, including my friend, the minority leader, voted for the last legally binding budget. but since august those republicans have dealt the case by measure. why else would they walk around washington claiming we don't have a budget. the senate will waste a day debating; the budget control act has the force of law. if republicans are serious about reducing the deficit, they wouldn't be working so hard to

undo that august law which cuts more than $2 trillion from the deficit. democrats agree that across-the-board cuts to domestic spending and defense programs in the budget control act aren't the ideal way to solve our nation's fiscal problems but the cuts were designed to be tough, so lawmakers were forced to reach a balanced deal. unfortunately, republicans refused to be reasonable. they refused to raise even a penny of new evidence or ask millionaires to contribute their new share to help reduce the deficit. and democrats won't agree to a one-sided solution that lets the super wealthy off the hook while forcing the middle class to bear all the hardship. madam president, the american people agree with this. these four stunt budgets all take that one-sided approach which protects healthy special interests at the expense of ordinary americans, and they clearly illuminate republicans' priorities, to shower the wealthy with tax breaks paid for by the middle class.

all four of the republican plans cut investments and help middle-class families to get back on their feet. all four plans would double the student loan rate, put college out of reach for many students. all four plans and medicare as we know it, gutting seniors' health benefits, lavish more tax breaks on millionaires and billionaires. yesterday the senate showed it's possible to advance policies and improve our economy and put americans back to work as long as democrats and republicans work together. in an overwhelming bipartisan vote yesterday, we passed the export-import bank reauthorization, that will support 300,000 jobs during next year, and these jobs will help american companies sill their products over -- sell their products overseas. every moment we waste refighting old battles is a time that could be better spent creating jobs. the time for showboats is over. now is time for the senate to

get back to work putting americans back to work.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no. mr. mcconnell: you know, before i was republican leader, i was probably best known as a lonely warrior against campaign finance reform on the grounds that it violates the first amendment right to free speech. but before that, i was probably best known, at least in some quarters, for an ad that i ran in my first senate campaign. it featured a pack of blood hands running around looking for my opponent who missed so many votes giving paid speeches around the country we thought we should call him out on it. i can't help but think back on that ad when it comes to senate

democrats and the federal budget. where in the world is it? where is the budget? we've got a nearly $16 trillion debt. we're borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar we spend. entitlements are going broke. millions are out of work. and senate democrats can't even put a plan on the -- on a piece of paper for a vote. can't even put a plan on a piece of paper so we can have a vote. what are they doing over there? what are they doing? isn't anybody over there embarrassed by the fact that they haven't offered a budget in three years? haven't offered a budget in three years. it's been three years since the democrat-led senate felt it needed to put a budget together so the american people can see what their priorities are and what they plan to do to fix this mess. three years in which they have

completely abdicated their responsibility as a majority party to show the american people what they stand for, to put their vision in black and white for all the world to see. the fact is they don't have one, don't have a budget. as far as i can tell, their only plan is to take shots at our plan and hopes nobody notices that they don't have one of their own. they're so unserious, they won't even vote for a budget that was written by a president of their own party. it doesn't get more irresponsible than that. i think treasury secretary geithner summed it up pretty well when he he was asked a few months ago what the administration planned to do to address entitlements. the single-biggest driver of the national debt. here's what the secretary of the treasury had to say. he said "we're not coming before you today to say we have a definite solution to that long-term problem," he said. "what we do know is we don't

like yours." you have to give the guy points for candor. no plan of his, but he doesn't like ours. what breathtaking disregard for the problems that we face. so, if you're looking for a simple three-word description of the democrat approach to the problems we face, it's this: duck and cover. duck and cover. they don't have a budget of their own. they're going to vote against their own president's budget later today, in all likelihood. and they're going to vote against every budget republicans put up. now the majority leader has tried to get around all this by suggesting that the budget control act we negotiated last fall should count as the budget, since it sets the top-line amount we're going to spend. but he knows as well as i do that's not a budget. a budget is a list of

priorities. it reflects your values as a party. it shows the tough choices you're willing to make. it's not just dollar figures, it's a vision. and it's the responsibility of any majority party to put one together, to stand up, madam president, and to be counted. but since democrats refuse to do their duty by the nation, republicans will attempt to do it for them. later today, we'll vote on five different budget proposals. the president's, congressman paul ryan's, senator pat toomey's, senator paul's and senator mike lee's. we'll give democrats a choice and see if they have the courage to get behind any of these proposals or none of them, and we'll learn a lot in the process. by the end of the day, we'll know whether there is a budget that washington democrats support, and the american people will know without a doubt who is

voting for solutions in this town and who isn't. they will know who has got a plan to fix the mess we're in and who doesn't. they will know who would rather spend their time criticizing others than doing the hard work of setting priorities and making choices. now, senate democrats don't want to explain how they will fix the fiscal mess we're in. they don't want to say how they will preserve and strengthen entitlements. what they really want to do is just complain about others. they are putting their desire for campaign material ahead of their responsibility to govern. the tragedy is every year they do so, the problems we face only get worse. the debt gets bigger, entitlements get closer to

insolvency and the american people have to go another year wondering when things will ever change. well, some people up here think it's time to do something now, and we'll know who those people are by their votes. madam president, i would now ask that the chair execute the order with respect to the five motions to proceed to the budget resolutions provided for under the order. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following concurrent resolutions which the clerk will report. the clerk: motions to proceed to calendar number 357, s. con. res. 41, calendar number 354, h. con. res. 112, calendar number 356, s. con. res. 37, calendar number 384, s. con. res. 43, and

calendar number 395, s. con. res. 44. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be six hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the second 30 minutes. the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: madam president, this is a consequential discussion today, because it really is a question of the future economic policy of the united states. that's what we're talking about here today. i just heard the republican leader say there is no budget. i really -- i don't know how to say this, but sometimes i wonder if colleagues pay attention to what they're voting on here. last year in august, we didn't

pass a budget resolution. instead, we passed a budget law. now, anybody that's had tenth grade civics knows a law is stronger than any resolution. a resolution is purely a congressional document. it never goes to the president for his signature. a law has to pass both bodies and be signed by the president. last year, instead of a budget resolution, we did a budget law called the budget control act. the budget control act set the budget for the next two years, for this year and next. more than that, it set ten years of spending caps, saving $900 billion. madam president, in addition, the budget control act gave a special committee the authority to reform the tax system and the

entitlement system of the country, and it said if you come to an agreement, special committee, your action cannot be filibustered. you have to go right to the floor for a vote. and if you don't agree, there will be an additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts put in place. now, madam president, the special committee didn't agree, and so that additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts is now the law. in addition to the $900 billion of spending cuts. that's a total spending cut package of more than $2 trillion. that is the biggest spending cut package in the history of the united states. and for our colleagues to say, well, there are no spending limits in place, well, what is the budget control act then? it's a law passed overwhelmingly

in the senate, passed in the house, signed by the president of the united states. madam president, why are they engaged in this diversion? well, i think i know why. because the last time our colleagues on the other side were in control, when they had it all, the house, the senate, the white house from 2001-2006, they had both houses of congress. until 2008, they had the white house. so, of course, nothing could be changed in terms of the policies they put in place until we had a new president. and what happened? what happened when they had total control? their policies were in place. madam president, republican policies led the united states to the brink of financial collapse.

that's what happened. and do you know what they want to do now? they want to go back to those failed policies and do it all over again. madam president, we can't let them do that. that would be a disaster for this country. it would be a disaster for the world's economy. madam president, i don't want -- i don't know what could be more clear than when their policies were in place, they brought this nation to the brink of financial collapse. i remember those days. i remember being called to a special meeting in this building with the leaders of the house and the senate and the head of the treasury department under president bush, and the chairman of the federal reserve, who told us if they didn't take certain actions the next day, this would be a financial collapse in the united states within days. madam president, i was in the

room when the rescue for the major financial institutions in this country was designed, and we were told late on a saturday night if we didn't reach agreement by the next day, the asian markets would open sunday night and they would collapse and our markets would open the next monday and they would collapse. barack obama was not the president. george w. bush was the president. the republican policies, economic policies had been put in place in 2001, in 2002 and 2003, and those policies were still in place when we came close to financial collapse. we don't forget. madam president, let's go back to what happened with the private sector jobs picture. at the end of the bush administration, we were losing

800,000 jobs a month. now we're gaining 130,000 in the last month. the months before that, immediately preceding, we were gaining about 200,000 jobs a month. we have had a gain now that the economy has started to turn around under this president of four million jobs created in the private sector. there it is. the red line is the results of the last time the republicans controlled the policy here. job losses every month. and finally, under this president, things have begun to turn around. instead of losing jobs, we're gaining jobs. and the same is true on economic growth. an economic growth record is very clear. in the last quarter of the bush administration, the economy was shrinking at a rate of almost

9%. you can see it there. that long red bar. the economy in the last quarter of the bush administration shrinking at a rate of almost 9%. but that, too, has turned around under this new president, and we're now averaging economic growth of about 3%. a dramatic improvement. but our republican friends aren't satisfied. they want to take us back. they want to take us back to those failed policies that had the economy shrinking at a rate of 9%, had us losing 800,000 jobs a month. now, madam president, we're not going to support that. we're going to oppose that. one thing the republican leader got right is we're going to be voting against going back to those failed policies that put this economy in the ditch, that put us on the brink of financial

collapse. he is absolutely right. we're going to oppose that. and our policies have begun to turn things in the right direction. here are the positive signs for the u.s. economy. 26 consecutive months of private sector job growth. 11 consecutive quarters of real g.d.p. growth. unemployment rate down. manufacturing has expanded for 33 consecutive months. consumer confidence is showing signs of improvement. in fact, the last consumer confidence reading is at a four-year high. u.s. auto manufacturers that were on the brink of bankruptcy under the bush administration policies, the republican policies, are now returning to frostability. and state revenues are showing signs of improvement. madam president, one way we can

reality test is how is our economy doing compared to our major competitors? how are we doing to the europeans? how are we doing compared to japan? how are we doing compared to the united kingdom? on every one of those tests, the united states comes out on top. our economy is performing better than the european zone. all the european countries combined. we are doing better than japan. we are doing better than the united kingdom. and this chart shows the story. our economic growth is the best compared to our major competitors. madam president, if there is any doubt that republican policies had us on the brink of financial collapse, we can just look to the study that was done by alan

blinder, former chairman of the federal reserve, and mark zandi who advised the mccain campaign on economic policy. the two of them did an analysis of the federal actions taken to deal with the fiscal crisis and the financial crisis, and here's what they concluded. "we find that its effects on real g.d.p., jobs and inflation are huge and probably averted what could have been called great depression 2.0." so when our friends attack the president and say he didn't lead , really? he averted a depression. he averted a depression. he prevented a financial collapse because that's exactly where we were headed when the republicans were in control. zandi and blinder went on to say -- "when all is said and done, the financial and fiscal

policies will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum, but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as if policymakers had not acted at all. if the comprehensive policy responses saved the economy from another depression, as we estimate, they were well worth their cost." madam president, that's exactly right. but what do our colleagues on the other side want to do? they want to take us to extreme austerity. they want to slam on the brakes, even while this economy is in a fragile recovery. madam president, we don't have to wonder what would happen if we adopted the policies that they are presenting here on the floor of the senate today. we don't have to imagine. we can just look across to europe because they are pursuing the policies that our colleagues on the other side advocate here today. and what's happening?

we have got a -- kind of an experiment going on, because what our republican friends are pushing for is being done in europe, and what are they experiencing? here is a col -- here a column from the former german chancellor gerhard schroeder: austerity is strangling europe. the direction of european financial policy must change away from pure austerity toward growth. greece, ireland, portugal, italy, spain have made substantial progress in stabilizing their finances but the economic and political situation in these countries shows that austerity alone is not the way to resolve the crisis. madam president, do we have a problem with that? absolutely. do we need to deal with it? absolutely. i was part of the bowles-simpson commission, i was part of the

gang of six. i spent hundreds of hours negotiating with colleagues on both sides to get a result. but the answer is not extreme austerity right now. almost every economic analyst says if you do that, you'll slam this country right back into recession. and again, we don't have to look very far to find out if that's true. because great britain has tried that approach. and what have they experienced? well, here's from the "wall street journal" on april 26: "u.k. slips back into recession." that is exactly the formula that is being presented by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today. let's slam on the brakes. we're going to put this thing right back in recession. hey, they had their chance. they ran the economic policy of this country for eight years under the bush administration,

and sure enough, they had this country on the brink of financial collapse. now they want to return to those same failed policies. madam president, what a mistake that would be. now, you've heard the republican leader say here there's no budget. we have no budget. as i indicated in the beginning of my remarks, we do have a budget law, was passed last year. it's called the budget control act. we could put that slide up. let me read from the budget control act, because maybe my colleagues missed it when they were voting on it. here's what it says in two places. "the allocations, aggregates and levels -- referring to spending levels -- set in the subsection shall apply in the senate in the same manner as for a concurrent

resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012." is that confusing? it says "in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012." the identical language is repeated for 2013. "the allocations, aggregates and levels set in the subsection shall apply in the senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013." that's about as clear as it can be. and i might add the budget control act, as i indicated earlier, stronger than any resolution because a resolution is purely a congressional document. it never goes to the president for his signature. so the budget control act that set the budget for 2012 and 2013

has the force of law, unlike a budget resolution that is not signed by the president. the budget control act also set spending limits not just for two years, but for ten years. it capped spending for ten years, saving $988 -- $900 billion. it included a deeming resolution that allowed budget points of order to be enforced for the appropriations bills that come in 2012 and 2013. and the budget control act did something else. it created a super committee, a reconciliation-like procedure to address entitlement reform and tax reform backed up by a $1.2 trillion so-called sequester.

a sequester is just a fancy word for more spending cuts. the budget control act that is the law said if the special committee didn't reform the tax system, didn't reform the entitlement system, that there would be another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts imposed on top of the $900 billion. now we all know the special committee didn't reach an agreement. and so, that additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts is in place. madam president, that's a total of $2 trillion of spending cuts. that's the biggest spending cut package in the history of the united states. for our friends on the other side to say there are no spending limits in place here, it's just wrong. it's just wrong. madam president, we do have a problem. we've got a big problem. and this chart that talks about the spending and revenue of the country over the last 60 years

tells us why we've got a problem. the red line shows the spending of the united states over that period. the green line shows the revenues. and you see a big gap between the spending and the revenue. that's why we have deficits. our friends on the other side just like to refer to one part of the equation. they just like to talk about spending. but the reality is deficits are created by the gap between the revenue and the spending. and you can see on this chart that we are at or near a 60-year high on spending. we've come off a little bit, now off of the 60-year high. and we are at or near a 60-year low on revenue. so, madam president, we've got to work both sides of the equation. again, we are at or near a 60-year high on spending.

we are at or near a 60-year low on revenue. so what is to be done about it? the public says we ought to have a balanced plan. they say the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit is a combination of additional revenue and spending cuts, 62% say that's what we ought to do. 8% say just increase taxes. 17% say just cut programs. madam president, i was part of the so-called bowles-simpson commission, and that commission, there were 18 of us, 11 of the 18 supported the conclusions that called for that kind of approach. additional revenue but also additional spending cuts. and, madam president, that's what the american people say we

ought to do. but that's not what our friends on the other side are proposing here. they propose actually additional tax cuts. dig a hole deeper before you start filling it in. and then they say, well, in addition to that, we will have really draconian spending cuts because you're going to have more tax cuts that primarily go to the wealthiest among us. and you're trying to reduce the deficit. that means you've got to have even more spending cuts. just say that our republican friends, the budgets they're going to be offering here today, they have something in common. every one of them ends medicare as we know it. every republican budget offered today ends medicare as we know it. madam president, on social security, one of the republican budgets being offered here today

cuts social sec 39%. that's their answer. if you're going to have more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us who already, many of them aren't paying their fair share of taxes, if you're going to give them additional tax cuts, trillions of dollars in some cases in these budgets they are presenting today, then how are you going to make it up? their answer is end medicare as we know it. that's in every one of their budgets. one of them has gone so far as to say, well, let's cut social security benefits 39%. madam president, we'll be voting on that later today, and we'll see who stands behind that proposal. every republican budget cuts taxes for millionaires by at least $150,000 a year. are you listening? every republican budget being offered here today cuts taxes

for millionaires by at least $150,000 a year on average. madam president, every republican budget being offered here today protects offshore tax havens. what are offshore tax havens? let's go to that next slide that shows my favorite picture of a building down in the cayman islands. ug land house. little five-story building in the cayman islands, lovely building. that building claims to be the home of 18,857 companies. they all say they're doing business out of that little building down in the cayman islands. 18,857 companies. now, they're not doing business out of that building. they're doing monkey business out of that building.

the monkey business they're doing is to avoid the taxes that they owe in the united states. madam president, every republican budget protects those offshore tax havens. madam president, the house republican budget plan, the first one that we will be voting on today is totally unbalanced. no revenue. in fact, it's a lot more tax cuts. $1 trillion of additional tax cuts for the wealthiest in our country. but they do cut some things other than taxes. they cut health care almost $3 trillion. they shift medicare to a voucher system ending medicare as we know it. they block grant medicaid, going right after the most vulnerable in our society: children,

disabled, those that have the least. they cut the safety net for seniors, children, the disabled, increasing the number of uninsured by more than 30 million. and they have large cuts to education, energy, and infrastructure. madam president, cutting education doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. you talk about eating your seed corn, that's it. after our house republican colleagues put out their budget, the catholic bishops said this. the catholic bishops, as this headline saeuz in "the washington post," said the house republican budget authored by mr. ryan fails the moral test. madam president, certainly it does. let's go to the next slide. this plan cuts discretionary

spending $1 trillion beyond what the budget control act did. madam president, if you look at priorities, it kind of leaps out at you. health care cut by almost $3 trillion, from $12.7 trillion to $9.9 trillion. and when you go to the question of education, where the united states is already lagging -- in fact, the united states ranks 25th out of 34 oecd countries in math. we're 25th in math. let's go to the next. in science, we're 17th out of 34. so we're 25th out of 34 in math. we're 17th out of 34 in science. and our republican colleagues, the budget from house republicans say cut education by 25%. cut it from $77 billion to $58

billion. that is a 25% cut in education under the house republican plan. madam president, gasoline, we've all seen gasoline prices rising. now we're thankful that they have been easing back in recent days. but nonetheless, on may 14, average $3.75 a gallon. and what is the republican answer to rising gasoline prices? well, let's cut those energy programs that are designed to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. let's cut them 60%. that's what the house republican plan does. it cuts programs to reduce our dependence on foreign energy from $4.7 billion a year to $2 billion. 60% cut in programs to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. and, madam president, if

anybody's driven on the highways of america, we all know we've got work to do there. if we look at infrastructure spending in our country versus our major competitors, we can see china is spending 9% of their g.d.p. on infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports, rail. europe 5%. the united states, 2.4%. madam president, we have to do better than that. so what's the republican answer? on transportation funding, they cut it 34%. they cut it 34%. madam president, i think we understand the direction that our republican colleagues want to take this country, and it's full speed in reverse. back to the failed policies which put this country on the brink of financial collapse the last time they were in charge.

madam president, we'll hear our colleagues on the republican side say you can't raise any revenue. you can't raise any revenue even though revenue is at or near a 60-year low right now. if we look historically at what it's taken to balance the budget, the last five times we balanced the budget, revenue was at 19.5% to 20.6% of g.d.p. under the republican plan, it never gets above 18.7%. so i don't think they are very serious about balancing the budget. former senate budget committee chairman judd gregg said this about the need for more revenue -- "we know revenues are going to have to go up. if you're going to maintain a stable economy and a productive economy, because of the simple fact that you're going to have to have this huge generation that has to be paid for." that's the baby boom generation.

former senate budget committee chairman domenici, another republican, also said we need more revenue. he said -- "a complete deficit reduction plan, one that can gain support from democrats and republicans, will need to combine comprehensive spending cuts with structural entitlement reform and new revenues. additional revenues will be needed if we're serious about controlling our debt." madam president, one of the issues that has become more and more clear in recent months is that income disparity is widening in america. this shows since 1979 what's happened to the top 1% in terms of their income and what's happened to the middle quintile and the lowest quintile. everybody else has been pretty much stagnant since 1979. the top 1% has gone up like a rocket. madam president, i got nothing

to be critical about in terms of people doing well. we want everyone to succeed but not just part of the population. madam president, the hard reality is since 1992 -- since 1995, the effective tax rate for the wealthiest 400 taxpayers in this country has been cut from about 30% to 18%. madam president, that's not fair. the republican plan is to give them more tax cuts, give them more tax cuts. in fact, the house republican plan on revenue provides an additional trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, gives millionaires an average tax cut of more than $150,000 a year. it does not contribute one dime of revenue to deficit reduction. madam president, i want to end

where i began. the last time our colleagues on the other side were in charge, when they controlled everything here from 2001-2006 and the white house until 2008, their policies, republican policies, led the united states to the brink of financial collapse. and now, the proposals they are making here today are to take us right back, right back to those failed policies. madam president, we shouldn't let them do that. that would be a mistake for our country. it would be a mistake for the world. i thank the chair and yield the floor. mr. sessions: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: the fundamental question we as a nation have to ask is what are we going to do now? what are we going to do for the

future? what is our plan for the future? and the problem we have in this senate is that the democratic majority refuses steadfastly, adamantly, to produce and lay out their vision for the future while investing a considerable amount of time and effort in attacking anybody who does. they even vote down their own president's budget, as bad as it is, the most irresponsible budget ever submitted here, in my opinion. so this is a really odd situation that we're in, and i would just say that our country has never been in more danger financially. erskine bowles and alan simpson, senator conrad served on their committee, came before the budget committee of which i am the ranking member, and told us this nation, both of them, a signed statement from them, this nation has never faced a more

predictable financial crisis. in other words, the course we are on today is unsustainable. they told us that. they told us it could happen as soon as within two years, and that was over a year ago that they made that testimony. we are in the danger zone financially, and i know a lot of people would like to say it's not so, but it is so. look at this chart. this chart shows the total debt of the euro zone, including the u.k., britain and the united states. our debt exceeds that of the euro zone. we had a larger debt than they do, and president bush, who my good friend, senator conrad, who is such a fine person, noted, presided over a period in which our debt increased and it did increase. the largest debt president bush ever had was $480 billion in one

year, which was too large. president obama has never had a budget that's less than $1,200,000,000,000 des. never had a deficit. next year will be over 1,000 billion dollars. our $15.5 trillion for the united states is greater than the eurozone and the eurozone has a larger population than we do. and let's look at this chart that just drives that number home again in case anybody is worried about it. i am. it shows the average debt per person, per capita in the countries that we have been reading about that are in financial trouble, and it hits them sometimes surprisingly and you never know quite how it's going to hit. but look at this.

the debt in spain, which is an iraqi financial cotion as we know is $18,000 per person, portugal $19,000, france $33,000. greece, $38,000. greece's debt per person, $38,000. whereas the united states is $44,000. yes, we have a little larger economy, but this is the danger zone. people were saying we could have a financial problem of very few people in 2007 as a result of the bubble in housing. they warned that might happen. oh, no, not this time. it's different. we got it under control and we had a financial crisis that we haven't recovered from yet. so i would say, madam president, we do need to take action and we do not have a budget. we do not have a budget. if we had a budget, why did president clinton -- obama

comply with the united states code and submit a budget over here this year? if we have a budget, why did the house pass a budget? if we had a budget, why did four different democratic congressmen and groups of congressmen submit budgets in the house? so if we had a budget, why did senator conrad seek to have a budget markup in the committee? he basically said well, we may not bring it up on the floor but the law says we have a budget. i'm going to bring one up in committee, and the day before the committee met, the democrats met in conference and told him not to do it. so we were expecting to have an twawl markup of a budget -- an actual markup of the budget presented by the democratic leadership and we didn't get it. why? senator reid said it would be foolish to have a budget, foolish. what did he mean by that? well, with the democratic leader

attacking republicans this morning, why would he say it is foolish for us to produce a budget? well, he said that because he meant it would be foolish politically. it would be not smart politically because the democratic leadership in the senate would have to lay out a vision for the future, and the vision they wanted to sell or they could agree on was one that the american people wouldn't like. it wouldn't be smart. they would reject it. we would add the numbers up, see how much taxes they actually want to increase, how much debt they are going to increase, how much spending is going to increase. and those are the kind of things that are disappointing. and so that's not leadership. it's an utter failure of leadership, whereas the republican house, they produced a budget that changes the debt course of america, puts us on a sound financial path. you can agree with it or disagree with it. you will have other budgets

offered today from the republican side that will have substantial support, that would change the debt course we are on, balance the budget in a certain number of years, put us on a sound financial path. and i expect every one of those budgets to be opposed by every member on the other side of the aisle, and it appears again that they will unanimously vote down president obama's budget and not offer one of their own directly contrary to the law. and i know the majority leader this morning said well, filibusters are a problem, but you can't filibuster a budget process. this budget control act is designed to ensure that a budget could be passed. the budget control act does not allow a filibuster. simply 50, -- 51 votes is neede to pass a budget. so why isn't it being brought forth? because they prefer to hide

under the table, not stand up and be counted, not address the greatest trouble this nation has, which is our debt. madam president, i see some of my colleagues here today. we would like to participate in a colloquy, and i would ask unanimous consent to a colloquy that would last up to 20 minutes with my colleagues. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president, i see senator blunt here who is part of the leadership -- who was part of the leadership in the house before he came to the senate. i know he has deep understanding of these issues and the posture that we're in as a nation today. i also see senator thune, a senator from south dakota, who is a ranking and active member of the budget committee and part of the leadership here in the senate, and i would be pleased

to -- senator blunt, how do you feel this morning as we head forth in a day in which we will bring up a series of budgets but have no plan from the majority party in the united states senate? mr. blunt: well, senator, i'm embarrassed that we're not serious about this issue. as senator thune and i served in the house together while you were league in these budget fights over in the senate, and we had a budget every year. we didn't always every single year have a budget the house and senate could agree on with each other, but the house always had a budget, the senate always had a budget. we always complied with the law, the 1974 budget act that says you have to have a budget. it says you have to have a budget by april 15. and frankly, you can't do your work without a budget. you can't get spending under control without a budget. you can't appropriate the way you should without a budget because what the budget does is say here's how much money we're willing to spend on defense and here's how much money we're

willing to spend on military construction and here's how much money we're willing to spend on energy, that part of the budget. if you don't have that, you really don't have a starting place. and i have all the respect in the world for our friend from north dakota, mr. conrad, but to be the budget chairman and have to come to the floor and all you can talk about is what's wrong with the other budgets that have been produced because your committee hasn't produced one has to be frustrating for him. no matter how effective he sounded like he was in talking about what was wrong with the people that had a plan, it's easy to find out what's wrong with somebody's plan, but particularly when you haven't got any obligation apparently on your own part to come up with a plan. remember, the white house was asked just a few weeks ago when senator reid said the senate will not have a budget, what

their position on that was, and he said we don't have a position on that. now, the president submitted a budget. why did the president submit a budget if he doesn't want the congress to act on a budget? the house voted on his budget this year. it was 414-0. not a single democrat or republican in the house voted for the president's budget. last year we voted on the president's budget, as i assume we will today. not a single democrat or republican voted on the president's budget last year, and the position of the white house is they don't care. it's an amazing situation to find ourselves in. and whoever is in charge of the senate in the future needs to have a commitment to the american people that we're going to have a budget. we're going to have an appropriations process. and we're going to get this spending under control. we have maxed out the credit card. everybody gets that. the figures you showed this morning of our debt relative to

the country's, that we sort of laugh at how irresponsible they're, i think we ought to look at pretty carefully. when our debt per person is greater than the greek debt per person, i haven't seen the front page of a paper in a while that didn't have something about chaos in greece on it because they've let their government get bigger than their economy can support. they've let their debt get bigger than the gross domestic product of their country by almost two times, but now we've exceeded our debt by -- our debt exceeds our potential to produce goods and services in a year for the first time ever. and in fact, in the three years we haven't had a budget, the debt of the country has increased almost $5 trillion as we have spent over $10 trillion in those three years without a budget. it's unacceptable.

everybody here knows it's unacceptable. and every american family, frankly, that thinks about it knows it's unacceptable. your fight along with what i'm sure has to be chairman conrad's frustration to not have a budget, couldn't be a more important topic for us to be talking about today or for the american people to be asking the question: why not? why are you just refusing to do your job? i know nobody in this chamber knows as much about the budget, in my opinion, as you do. and your frustration of where this doesn't allow us to go to do the right things is as great as anybody's, maybe greater than everybody's. but i think all of us know we should be doing the right thing here, which is to obey the law, create a budget, and have a budget that gets us to the place that we know we need to get to, where our economy once again is

right sized to our government, or more importantly, our government is right-sized to our economy. mr. sessions: briefly, before i go to senator thune to get him engaged in this, based on your experience in the budgetary process, about 60% of federal spending is mandatory entitlement spending and mandatory entitlement spending. do you think that we can develop a long-term plan for the future that fails to address that large portion that's growing faster than the other part of the budget? mr. blunt: no, we can't. last year for the first time ever all of the money that came in was less than the money that went out automatically to these programs where if you meet the definition for the program, you get the money. and it is at 60% now. and it hasn't been that many years ago it was at 50%. and it wasn't that many years before that it was at 40%.

we have got to deal with these issues because they lead us to an inevitable place. do we want to be europe today just a few years from now? surely not. surely the answer is "no." and we can't avoid that unless we have a plan. it's easy to talk about how bad the other plan is, but what we all ought to be doing is coming up with a plan that gets us to where we all know we need to be. mr. sessions: thank you. senator thune, thank you for your leadership and active participation in this debate. what do you -- what's on your mind this morning, as we'll be heading to votes on four different budgets? mr. thune: i would say to my colleague from alabama who is the ranking member on the budget committee, i got on the budget committee in this session of congress and have been on it now for two years, and we haven't written a budget either year. it sort of begs the question

about whether or not the committee has any relevance around here anymore. but, you know, to the point about spending and debt. we get down here, we talk about it. i think it's been really interesting, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen who until several months ago held that position, would come in front of congress and say the greatest debt to our national security is our national debt. there are a lot of external threats the united states faces and the world continues to be a dangerous place, and al qaeda and uranium nuclear capability and china and north korea -- you can go down the list -- but for the top ranking military official in this country to say the greatest threat to america's national security is its debt speaks volumes about what our priority ought to be. to think we here in the united states senate now for over 1,100 days have not passed a budget is pretty stunning in light of that reality. and also, to say that somehow because the budget control act last summer passed and we don't

need a budget really misses the point. the reason we had the budget control act is because we didn't pass a budget. the budget control act is what you get when you don't pass a budget. you end up at the 11th how, having to come at the last minute to put something together to deal with the issue of the debt limit which is what we were dealing with at that time and it did put caps on spending but it doesn't do anything to deal with the long-term structural challenges facing this country which is what a budget is designed to do. and, you know, the president submitted a budget this year which would suggest that he thought we ought to be working on a budget. the chairman of the budget committee, as my colleagues have mentioned, even called a budget committee markup where we went there, said bring amendments. we went and we brought amendments and we gave opening statements, and we gaveled it out and said we're not going to do it. so here we are again on the floor of the united states senate without a budget, having to vote on other budgets presented by some of our colleagues -- the house of representatives which passed a budget this year earlier and the president's budget. and to be fair, the president at

least submitted a budget. it was a terrible budget, if you're looking at the issues of spending and debt. in fact, i think the reason it got voted down 414-0 in the house of representatives is because it added $11 trillion to the debt. it takes our total debt at the end of the ten-year period to $26 trillion. and spends $47 trillion over the next ten years, raises taxes by $2 trillion on a very fragile economy. that was a really bad attempt. but at least it was an attempt, an attempt that yielded zero votes in the house of representatives. it will be interesting to see if on the floor of the united states senate today there are any democrats who will vote for their president's budget proposal. but the point that the senator from alabama, the senator from missouri make is a good one, and that's just simply this. we have a responsibility under the law to spell out what we would do to get this country on a more sustainable fiscal path. that's something that's in the budget laws that the senator from alabama point -pd out.

-- pointed out. and yet here we go on year after year after year, over 1,100 days without the senate doing its job and passing a budget. that's significant for a lot of reasons not the least of which this is the fourth year in a row where we're going to have a $1 trillion deficit. under this administration, you have the highest deficit, the second-highest deficit, the third-highest deficit and the fourth-highest deficit in history. four years, consecutive years of $1 trillion deficits. but we're concerned about the economy. we need the economy to get growing again, to expand, to create jobs. that helps address all these things. what's interesting about it, and i know both my colleagues here on the floor are well aware of this, but there's a lot of research that's been done with regard to developed countries who start carrying these high debt loads. all the analysis suggests that when you get a debt to g.d.p. ratio of more than 90%, it costs you about a point to a point and a half of economic growth every single year. well, in our country a percentage growth of economic

growth means a million jobs. our debt to g.d.p., which is now over 100%, means it is draining our economy of economic growth and, therefore, lots of jobs. the congressional budget office said about the president's budget that if his budget were to be enacted, it could cost us up to 2.2% of economic growth over the course of the next ten years, which would amount to 2.2 million jobs. we know the president's effort was not serious. he did at least put something out there. but we need a serious discussion here in the united states senate about a budget that will put us on a pathway not only to get spending and debt under control, but to allow the economy to grow and expand and get americans back to work. those are the -- that's what's at stake here. that's really why we believe we ought to have a budget. that's why we're going to have an exercise today where at least we get a chance to vote on some budgets as advanced by some of our colleagues in the house of representatives as well as here in the senate. and the president's budget. but the fact of the matter is that this is the third year in a

row when we haven't followed the law and gone through the process of getting a budget here on the floor of the united states senate. and for our colleagues to suggest on the other side that it's not necessary because the budget control act was passed last summer not only is inconsistent with the law, but it begs the point about why the question about why did the president submit a budget? why did they call a markup in the first place? clearly somebody around here thinks we ought to be doing our job but we're not doing t. i would hope as we debate this issue today that at least we'll put in front of the american people the arguments that we think need to be made with regard to getting spending and debt under control, addressing the long-term, the mandatory side of the budget that my colleague from missouri, senator blunt mentioned. that's where we know the money is. that's what nobody wants to deal with. we keep squeezing more out of the discretionary side of the budget. we've got to take on if we're going to save social security and reform these medicare entitlement programs that's what the budget needs to do.

to come here and say republicans will just filibuster again is completely out of whack wh what we know to be the law. that is it takes 51 votes to pass a budget and a reconciliation bill that could possibly follow. i appreciate my colleague from alabama, his leadership as the ranking member on the budget committee. i look forward today, at least to the chance for us to at least talk about a budget and what we ought to be doing for the future of this country since we really don't have a budget on the floor of the united states senate. mr. sessions: i couldn't agree with you more. i would just note the reason we're here today is because a budget was not produced. the parliamentarian of the senate ruled that a budget has not been produced. and, therefore, under the rules of the budget act, budgets that have been filed can be brought to the floor. that's how we were able to force the vote today. and senator thune, just briefly,

and i'll ask also in our leadership, senator blunt, isn't it a fact that what happened with the budget control act is we spent so much money, we'd reached the spending limit of america, the debt ceiling, and we had to have a last-minute effort to reach an agreement. and the republicans insisted that we had to reduce spending. and we got a reduction in spending from $47 trillion over the next ten years to $45 trillion. and you would have thought that's going to bankrupt america. we would spend $45 trillion instead of $47 trillion. and that's not a budget. it just was a limit on spending. and it was done because republicans said we're not going to raise the debt limit until you at least cut some spending. and that's all that can be accomplished. we avoided a crisis. but it was a pretty tense time.

senator blunt? mr. blunt: saying the budget control act is a budget, as senator thune mentioned, if that was the budget, why did the president submit one? nobody really believes that's a budget. the parliamentarian said it wasn't a budget. but what it is, it would be like your family sitting down to decide what money you're going to have to spend this year, and, we've got x number of dollars. let's just spend it. that's no budget. particularly when you had to borrow 40% of the x number of dollars you said you had. we're borrowing 40% of the money we said we're going to spend, the only number we have that we've agreed to is the maximum amount we'll spend knowing we don't have anywhere near that number and we haven't allocated that in any way. that's no budget. everybody knows that. everybody also knows we're not -- you can't get there unless you have a way to get there. if a family says we've done the budgeting for the year. we just decided if we borrow almost as many much money as we make and we spend that

somewhere, that's our budget. we haven't decided where we're going to spend, how we're going to spend it, haven't even decided a reasonable way we're going to get it. we decided here's the number we're going to spend, now family, let's go out and start spending and we'll meet here later this year and see how it worked out. it makes no sense at all, and everybody knows that. interestingly, we don't hear much about this. it's surprising to me that every day there's not a story about why for the first time ever for three years straight now the senate has decided it just doesn't have to do the work that the law requires it to do, as we dig this hole deeper and deeper and deeper. the longer we wait, the more difficult the solution is going to be. every single day that passes, it's harder to solve this problem than it would have been the day before. and now we've gone three years without a budget, and apparently we're going to go through the rest of this process without a

budget. by the time we get to the end of this year we'll be approaching that fourth year without a budget. and it's not like this will just be a good idea. the law says we have to have one. and we should have one. i -- mr. sessions: senator blunt, you're in the leadership of the house, you're in the leadership of the united states senate, be frank with us, what is it that would cause the majority party not to want to lead, not to want to lay out a plan for the future? and just attack anybody that does lay out a plan? i know it's hard. we all know this is a tough thing, but don't you think a part of -- a party that aspires to lead the united states senate, instead of hiding underrer the table, should -- under the table, should stand up and say what they believe we should do over the next decade financially? mr. blunt: i think the law even

requires it. i think the leader on the other side, the majority leader, has been pretty clear about this. it's just bad politics to have a budget. bad politics to tell the american people officially what we're for. bad politics for our members to have to go on record saying what they're for. the president submitted a budget. there are 54 members of the president's party here in the senate. 51 of them could pass this budget, and it would be the senate-passed budget. and then you would go to the house and you would say let's look at the house budget and the senate budget and see if we could agree on a budget. actually, they have been pretty transparent. you have to give them some credit for not -- not trying to be different than they really are. they have said it would be politically foolish for us to pass a budget because then people would know what every one of the 51 of our members were for, and they have to say what they're for. my guess is nobody in the majority will say they are for anything today. not for the president's budget, not for any budget we'll submit. so you go home and say i'm not

for any of that. you can't accuse me of being for a bad plan because i'm for no plan. that's where we are. mr. sessions: well, we need revenue. i use that word. but i won't say who they want to tax except a very few rich. the buffett tax would produce about $4 billion a year when we have a $1,400 billion deficit. a senator said he would be impeached if he failed to produce a budget as west virginia's governor. he said sure, i have a problem of failing to offer a budget. as a former governor, my responsibility was to put a budget forward and balance. well, i see my colleague is here. i think our time is up. senator thune, there might be a couple of minutes. i will yield to you. mr. thune: if the senator would yield for a minute. i assume in alabama and missouri, i know in south dakota, our states pass budgets.

it can be done. you can balance your budget. it would be nice if we had a requirement in the constitution that would -- that would demand that like many of our states do. certainly there doesn't seem to be the political will here to do it absent that, but it can be done and hard decisions have to be made. south dakota went through it last year, made some hard choices. our governor, the legislature, those are the types of hard decisions that have to be made here, but it takes a certain amount of political will and a willingness to make hard decisions. as the senator from alabama and the senator from missouri have both pointed out, there doesn't seem to be the willingness here to make those hard votes as has already been pointed out. the leader has said on the other side what point is there in doing a budget. and the president of the united states and his folks when they were asked about whether or not the senate ought to do a budget said well, we don't have an opinion about that, which i think is really ironic coming from the leader of the free world about whether or not this country ought to have a -- ought to have a budget to work with. but that being said, i think as

our time winds down here, to argue as our colleagues have that we don't need one, that it misses the point of the law, the parliamentarian has ruled that the budget control act was, in fact, not a budget. we need to do a budget here in the senate. more importantly, the american people expect it and the taxpayers deserve it, and that's why we ought to be having debate on what we're going to vote for today, not what we're going to vote against. it will be interesting to see if any of our colleagues on the other side vote for any of the budget proposals put forward today, including the president of the united states, his budget will be voted on along with several other republican budgets. i have got a feeling it will be for some things. i have got a feeling that as you said earlier, they are not going to be for anything. mr. sessions: i thank the chair. is the time up on this side? the presiding officer: the time is expired. mr. sessions: i thank the chair and would yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that

chantelle boyens, a detailee to the budget committee, be given floor privileges during the pendency of the debate on the budget resolutions and the food and drug administration safety and innovation act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: madam president, i have six unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the use of calculators be permitted on the floor today during consideration of the motion to proceed to budget resolutions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: madam president, i want to go back to the point my colleagues have made. it's fascinateing to me, you didn't -- fascinating to me, you didn't hear them talk for one moment about the substance of their proposals. not a moment. did you notice that? i wonder why that would be. i think i know. because their proposals would take us right back to the failed policies that brought this country to the brink of economic

collapse. that's what happened the last time they were in charge. they controlled both bodies from 2001-2006. the white house to 2008. so none of those policies they put in place when they controlled both chambers could be changed. and where were we at the end of 2008? where were we? we were losing 800,000 jobs a month and the economy was shrinking at a rate of 9%. and the proposals that they have, the substantive proposals they are making here today, take us right back to those same failed policies. so it's no wonder you don't hear them saying one word about the budget proposals we're going to be voting on, because they are the same failed policies that put this country in the ditch. instead, what you hear them say is we on our side have no budget fascinating.

well, let me just put up again what we passed last year, a law called the budget control act. and let me again read from that law. it says -- "the allocations, aggregates and levels, spending levels, in subsection shall apply in the senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012." in the next clause, it makes the exact same statement for 2013. that the budget control act that was passed last year will serve in the same manner as a budget resolution. and earlier this year, pursuant to that law, i gave the

appropriators, which i am required to do under the law, what they could spend. and here it is. i've got this chart being blown up. agriculture, nutrition and forestry. 13,397,000,000. armed services, 14,698,000,000. banking housing and urban affairs, 22,167,000,000. commerce, science and transportation, they get $15 billion, $16 million. energy and natural resources, resources, $5,276 million. doesn't that kind of sound like a budget? guess what? it is a budget. and it's in the budget control act that we passed last year instead of a budget resolution.

now, again, anybody that's taken high school civics knows a budget law is stronger than any budget resolution. why would that be the case? because a budget resolution is purely a congressional document. never goes to the president for his signature. a budget law by definition has to be signed by the president. so last year instead of a budget resolution, we passed a budget law called the budget control act. pursuant to that law, i gave the appropriators earlier this year before the deadline their allocations, and i was just reading from it. finance, $1,337, 000, 888.

homeland security, $102,276,000,000. the judiciary committee, $18,545,000,000. rules and administration, $41 million. it sounds a lot like a budget, doesn't it? because that's exactly what it provided. it provided the spending limits for this year and for next year. that's in the budget control act that we passed in the united states senate last year on a strong bipartisan vote, passed the house of representatives, signed into law by the president of the united states. so when we hear over and over there is no budget, no spending limits for this year, it's just not so. there are spending limits for this year, there are spending limits for next year, they are included in the budget control act which is a law. it was passed, it was signed by

the president. madam president, it also, that budget control act, limited spending for the next ten years, put spending caps in place. budget resolutions rarely have spending caps for more than one year. the budget control act had ten years of caps, saving $900 billion. that's the law. i see the senator from michigan is on the floor, a very valued member of the budget committee. welcome to this debate. we have been hearing a lot from the other side. interestingly enough, i want to say to the senator almost nothing about the substance of their proposals. i assume that's because they want to go back to the same failed policies that put this country in the ditch that we're still digging out of. all they want to talk about is not having a budget resolution. not one word, but instead of a budget resolution, we passed a

budget law, as you well know, the budget control act. i recognize the senator. how much time would the senator -- ms. stabenow: five minutes or so. mr. conrad: we'll allocate it all. ms. stabenow: first of all, let me thank the chairman of the budget committee who i have to say is going to be sorely missed. in fact, i'm not sure we're going to let him go at the end of the year. i think we're going to put up some doors, lock the doors in his office and not let him leave. he has been such an incredible valued member of the senate and a leader for our country on these issues. it's absolutely true that what we're really debating is whether we go back to policies that put us in the huge deficit ditch that we find ourselves in or whether we continued to go forward as a country. we need to keep going forward

and going forward even more quickly, certainly, but in my state we are seeing us begin to move forward, with manufacturing coming back, innovation, opportunities, and we need to continue to push for that. but let me stress as well what the chairman has said. we passed a budget control act by 74 votes in the united states senate. 74 votes, bipartisan vote. on august 2 of 2011. it put in place the spending caps that the chairman talked about. it laid out something that frankly in my time since being here starting in 2001 has been done differently and frankly has a stronger basis for it, because instead of just having something passed by the house and the senate, it actually was signed by the president. it's law. it has -- it has the face of law, the force of law, and it is in a situation where it has even

more impact than it would normally do. yes, we didn't do the normal process. what we did was one better than the normal process, which is the budget control act. and it did pass and it did put in place the spending caps, and in fact set up, as we know, a deficit reduction commission, a requirement on cuts that will take place in january, and it's also true that what we don't have is a long-term plan. as the chairman has talked about over and over again, we have got to come together on a long-term deficit reduction plan. so we agree on that, and there are many people that have talked about that and worked on various proposals. the president has led negotiations. members in this body have. and certainly the chairman of the committee has continued to lead those efforts. and we need to get that done. but in terms of what we have on a budget resolution that puts in place limits on caps, that has been done. now, when we look at what is in front of us in the votes that we're going to be having today, it's very, very simple in terms

of values, madam president. the question is are you on the side of the middle class or on the side of millionaires in this country. you know, folks in my state, millionaires feel like -- the middle class, i should say, feel like the system has been pretty much rigged against them and all they want is a fair shot. we have families struggling to make ends meet, struggling to send their kids to college. over and over again they look at what's going on here and scratch their heads at why in the world would we continue to focus on things that help a privileged few, those who have had the most benefit in the last decade, why do we continue to see policies like these budgets that, in fact, focus on more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and ask middle-class families to sacrifice more and more. they shake their heads and say what's going on here? you guys just don't get it of what's happening to the majority of families. and what we're seeing once again

is that rather than focusing on jobs and bringing the economy back on track, bringing jobs back to the united states, strengthening our ability to make things and grow things in this country, which has to happen if we're going to have a middle class and have an economy, what we see our colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanting to double student loan rates and eliminate medicare. eliminate medicare as we know it in order to give another round of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. that makes absolutely no sense. instead of spending our time passing jobs bills that we need to pass, by the way, including the farm bill which employs 16 million people in this country when we talk about rural communities and agriculture and food processing and all of our efforts on food policy across the country, instead of doing that, they want to spend their time focusing on something that

will give more tax breaks to millionaires and ask middle-class families one more time, just one more time to sacrifice. folks in my state are saying we've had enough of this. we've had enough of this. well, we -- what we ought to be doing is our to-do list, stopping outsourcing and rewarding companies who bring jobs home. helping responsible homeowners refinance and take advantage of today's lower interest rates. cutting taxes for small business who are creating jobs and investing in their companies. we should be continuing critical investments in clean energy manufacturing for the future. and as i said, passing a farm bill for 16 million americans whose jobs rely on agriculture and our rural economy. and we should be ebb focusing on helping our veterans who are coming home from the war find good-paying jobs and thanking hem -- them for their service.

so we've got loot to do, a lot to do. instead we're in the same old failed debate that got us in the hole, got us to this situation where there was a crisis on wall street, got us to the point where we lost millions and millions of jobs in the past. are we going to go back or are we going to go forward? that's really the question. are we going to go backwards or are we going to go forwards? so right now what are the differences when we look at the four different republican plans? they're very, very similar. some different numbers, some accurate, some not accurate but different numbers but here's some basics, three things that are the same. they all end medicare as an insurance plan. increase costs by thousands of dollars for seniors in our country. put them back in a plan that's in 1964 or before where seniors have to try to find private

insurance and, of course, since as we get older we all spend more health care dollars, we all need more health care, so costs are higher so it's tougher for people who are older find affordable insurance and they couldn't find it which is why we created medicare in 1965. they would say go back prior to 1965, end medicare as we know it. second thing is allow student loan rates to double. all the plans would double the costs. i don't know about anybody else, but in michigan, where we are transforming the economy, going to advanced manufacturing, new technologies, we have folks going back to school in their 40's and 50's, we have young people going to college and they're not asking for more expense. the average debt in michigan is about $25,000 that a student has and they're not asking to add to that any more. and all four of these would do

that, would double the student loan interest rates. and, by the way, these are loans, people are taking out the money, they're responsible, and they are paying it back. but they're asking for help to be able to make sure that they can afford to be able to have those loans so that they can dream big dreams and go to college and be successful and i thought that's what our country was all about. you know, when i was growing up in the little town of claire if my dad was sick when i was in high school and if i hadn't had help with fee scholarship and loans i wouldn't have been able to go to college. the great thing about our country is some red-headed freck-faced girl in claire who folks didn't know, they -- folks decided maybe i ought to have a chance to go to college. and because of that, i've had tremendous opportunities in my life. we have a lot of young women,

young men working hard every day who deserve the same opportunity. people who have lost their job or are going back to get new training who deserve the same opportunity. so all four of these plans end medicare as an insurance plan, increase by thousands of dollars costs to seniors, double student loan rates, and all of it to make sure that we give more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. i know at least one or more of these plans add $150,000 i believe in average tax cut, more than the average person in michigan makes in a year, the gentleman from person in america makes in a year. we're saying to seniors and families and students we want you to pay more so we can give another tax cut to the folks who have already gotten the majority of the benefits in the last ten years economically. and let me just stress one more time before ending.

because i think this goes to the values represented in these budgets. do we want to say that retirees, that older people in our country have opportunity to live long lives? social security and medicare are great american success stories. they've literally brought a generation out of poverty to live in dignity. they brought a generation of people like my mom who is almost 86 to a place where she is healthy, she can play with her grandkids because she had the opportunity to pay into a system called medicare and be able to live longer. those are good things. those are good values in america. not bad values. those are good values. and all four of these budgets, the paul budget would end medicare in 2014. the lee budget would end it in 2017. the ryan budget in 2023 and the toomey budget in 2023. i cannot imagine that americans

want to go back to that system where seniors can't count on the ability to see a doctor, get their medicine and have the dignity of a long and healthy life. madam president, i would urge our colleagues to vote no on every single one of these approaches that go backwards and support our efforts to keep america going forward and to focus on those things that are going to make our economic recovery even faster. i yield the floor. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: we need to lie out a plan for the future of this country. that's what this is all about. my colleague just said just vote no on all of them and keep us going. don't go back. what -- when i hear that to be

said, and no ambiguity about it, let's just keep on the path we're on. this is good enough. let's be happy. we're in washington, here's the letter, you know, we're in washington, we're having fun, i caught a fish, we had a party, send more money. isn't that what it's all about? isn't that wouldware hearing from the other side? send more money. and we'll take care of things for you. we don't have to cut anything. we don't have to reduce spending. we're not really on an unsustainable path, actually we cut spending over the next ten years from $47 billion to $45 billion, aren't we great? which is a huge increase over current level of spending, increases spending every year under the budget control act, not nearly enough to change the debt course of the country, but that's okay. and, by the way, do you know what president obama's budget

does? president obama's budget wipes out the sequester. that's before the ink is dry on the budget control act agreement at the 11th hour to reduce spending over the next decade, $2 trillion, president obama submits a budget in february, january, proposing to wipe out the sequester. all $1.1 trillion of it. what kind of commitment do we have to control spending? just send more money. that's the solution. tax, spend. tax, spend. i wish it weren't so. i wish i could say differently. well, let me ask this question: do my colleagues not feel a responsibility to tell the american people what their financial plan for the future of america is? do they have no responsibility?

do they feel no sense of obligation, no duty? and all they want to do is just attack anybody else's plan who's trying to save this republic from financial disaster, attack them, because they might want to reduce spending somewhere, and somebody might not like it because they didn't get quite as much from the government as they got before. are there no programs we're not prepared to reduce or eliminate that are wasteful and aren't worthwhile? is there nothing in this government? maybe we got g.s.a. having hot tubs in las vegas, maybe we ought to at least do that. how about the t.s.a., got these warehouses with millions of dollars in equipment not even being used. what about the solyndra loan, $500 million in bogus loans to

political cronies, and evidence is coming out there's more of that. can't cut that? that's against the energy. what they need to be doing is getting off the backs of the energy producers and allowing more energy to be produced. it doesn't take taxpayers' money to produce more energy. we have a decent regulations, let more energy be produced and you know what they do? they send checks to uncle sam. they pay royalties on all the offshore and federal lands, pay taxes on the money they make. the people who get, shall, get work at the oil companies pay taxes. that's the way you get money, not just taxing somebody. and i think the american people fundamentally understand that a tax on the rich is a tax on the private sector and you overtax the private sector you get less of it. it's the private sector that creates the wealth that pays the taxes that allows us to distribute money here, go back to our districts and act like we're some hero returning people

their money that we took from them and we want to be some special -- especially credited person because we brought back some bacon to our district. well, the american people understand this. we're not happy about this. the budget control act's not close to what we need to be doing to put our country on a sound path. not close. and i have to say the president's budget undoes half of that. it adds, actually, when i said the budget control act took spending down from $47 trillion to $45 trillion, president obama's budget he submitted just a few weeks ago would add $1.6 trillion back, so that would make it go from 45 to 46

trillion in spending over ten years. this is the way they propose to operate this government. that's what their plan is. and why won't they lay it out? because they know the american people will look at it and say good grief. that's not what we want for this country. you guys got to get your house in order. we expect you to cut some spending there. we know there's waste, fraud, and abuse in this capital. you better get busy. but all we hear from my democratic colleagues is send more money. and what is particularly troubling is a theme and a suggestion that it's okay. we don't have to make any changes. but we do. we do have to make changes. just show this chart, and the changes will be difficult, but not so bad as to have the

country be damaged in any significant way. if we -- this is where our spending level is today, $3.6 trillion, right here. this is the next decade. under the budget control act, where we cut spending. in that t confrontation because the government was cut down because we reached the spending limit, we couldn't borrow any more money and an agreement was finally reached to take $2 trillion out of spending over ten years, that's what this chart is after that cut had been put in place. president obama wants to wipe it out, half of it. and so it would add $8 trillion in new spending. you cut that to $6 trillion or $5 trillion, we'd balance the budget. it would still show an increase, wouldn't it? it would just be maybe a $5

trillion or $4 trillion increase in spending instead of $8 trillion. and we could make a big difference there. but the path we're on is unsustainable. the path we are on leaves us in the danger zone. the path we're on has already led us to have more debt than europe, more debt per capita than any of the countries in europe. and it's unsustainable. i'm really worried about it. i'm particularly worried that we don't have a sense in this body that we've got to make changes. madam president, we're going to have to look at the entitlement program. i've heard senator conrad say this repeatedly. he served on the debt commission. they said we've got to do that. does the president propose any entitlement changes in his budget? no. does the democratic -- do the democratic members of congress here in the senate, are they

proposing entitlement changes? no. who is? senator ryan has proposed entitlement changes. he's prepared to defend them as being the kind of changes that will preserve, protect and sustain medicare, medicaid, social security. but you can't allow it to continue to increase at rates four or five times inflation. that's what an unsustainable spending course is. when 60% of your budget is increasing at three or four times inflation rate, you are in big trouble. you can't tax your way out of that. that's just a fact. upper-income people are going to have to contribute more to medicare. they just are. we don't have the money. we can't just make it up and act like that's not reality. it is reality. so i think the budgets you'll see from this side will be

attacked viciously as one to kill these kind of programs. they're not designed to kill these kind of programs. they're designed to put us on a financial path that we can be healthy and prosperous in. and sustain the benefits that we promised. but a big chunk of medicare spade for out of the general treasury of the united states. people with higher incomes ought to contribute some to that. and they can do that. we can do that as a nation. so, madam president, i think it's just rather weird, odd, and curious that we've come to the floor and call up without debate, without an opportunity to amend a series of budgets. why? because no budget has been produced in the budget committee. and under the rules of the

senate, people can bring up a budget. you don't get to have amendments, but you can bring up. under the budget act, the budget committee should have hearings, offer amendments, have a markup, bring a budget to the floor, guarantee 50 hours of debate, unlimited amendments and then final passage within a certain time. that's the way it works. guarantees priority to a budget because the people who wrote the budget act in 1974 knew how important a budget was. they gave it priority. it can't be filibustered. 50 votes with the vice president. 51 otherwise. can pass the budget. because we need a budget, and we should be seeking to do that. and that's -- to me, it's pretty frustrating to see the situation we're in. so i guess i'll conclude with asking does the majority party, do they not feel an obligation

to tell the american people where they would like to lead the country? do they not in a time of financial crisis not want to lay out a plan that they can rally behind and ask the american people to rally behind to save our country? is it an absolute fact that this country has never ever, ever been in a financial condition as severe as this one? we have never ever faced the long-term systemic debt threat that we face today. we've never been on a path so unsustainable. never. nothing close to it. this is a threat to the future of america and the party that aspires to lead the united states senate should lay out its plan. the president should be engaged. he should be insisting we pass a budget that has some meaning and would change the debt course of the country. and what do we have? nothing but attacks on members

of congress who lay out plans that would actually do that. but not bring ours up. why? it's foolish. foolish for us. we'd expose ourselves. somebody would show what we proposed. they might add up how many taxes we actually want to increase. they might add up and say your plan doesn't change the debt course. they may add up and say you spend too much. so we don't want to do that. that would be foolish. and i've never seen a situation in which, in a time of crisis this nation has had a failure of leadership as great as we're seeing today. it seems to me. maybe i don't get this. maybe something's wrong with me. but i think everybody that cares about the republic should be prepared to stand and vote on proposals to put us on the right path.

we're not on the right path today. we've got a threat out there that could put us in a financial crisis overnight. it could happen very quickly. and when that occurs, it's too late to fix it. we saw the warnings that led to the 2007 debt crisis. that was a deeply damaging event, that debt crisis. we haven't gotten over it yet. and we could have another one. wouldn't that be terrible? these numbers don't assume that we have a recession. they have no real recession projected in the numbers that you're seeing. we need to avoid a debt crisis, a financial crisis, as erskine bowles and alan simpson on the debt commission told us to avoid. we need to do that. we're going to have some leadership on both sides of the aisle, i believe. so, madam president, i reserve

the balance of my time and would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: madam president, senator menendez is here and he's to be recognized for ten minutes. senator menendez would do that at this point. mr. menendez: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: last year the budget control act became the law of the land, and it sets discretionary spending limits for security and nonsecurity spending for not just one year but for two years. and it puts us on a path to reduce the deficit by more than $2 trillion over the next ten years. so now we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle who continue to try to make claims that we don't have a budget. i guess if you say it often enough, people may believe it. but it seems that our republican colleagues have selective amnesia about the budget control act. we have a budget. it's called the budget control

act. and it has the force of law which is more than we can say for any of the proposals before us today. so today's debate makes me wonder if we're on a dance floor instead of the senate floor because we've already taken one step forward and now it's two steps back. these republican proposals call for extreme cuts on the backs of seniors, students and the most vulnerable in our society without asking any contributions from millionaires and corporations. and that's just not fair. it is not balanced. and it doesn't reflect the priorities of new jersey's middle-class families. i strongly believe that we must get our nation's fiscal house in order, and i have always supported a fair and balanced approach to reducing our deficits. but i cannot in good conscience support proposals in which working families, seniors, and students must endure billions in cuts while oil companies making $1 trillion in profit over the next decade, and billionaires are not asked to pay their fair

share. supporters of the house republican budgettent dued by congressman ryan -- budget introduced by congressman rye january justify radical changes to medicare and other programs by saying we can't afford it. but in the very same republican budget in which we can't afford that, we see an average tax cut of over a quarter of a million dollars to millionaires. and that's on top of the six-figure tax break they are receiving from the bush tax cuts. and at the same time republicans propose to add thousands of dollars of increased costs on the backs of middle-class seniors, they somehow find the money for another tax cut for millionaires that's worth more than four times the entire average household income of an american family. now people who have worked hard and build personal wealth should be applauded for their success. at the same time many of them are willing to contribute to help the nation in this tough

economic time if we ask, and we know from experience that asking a fair share from the wealthiest and most successful, as we did during the clinton era of prosperity, will not break our economy. it just comes down to a matter of fairness. what we're seeing today is our friends on the other side of the aisle taking yet another run at shifting our nation's financial burden on to middle-class families, seniors and students all while defending special breaks for their special interests. how is that fair? how is that balanced? it's not. and we can't let it stand. let's talk about the facts. republicans are not only seeking to repeal the affordable care act, but they are also dismantling medicare, medicaid and other vital programs. under the ryan budget, new jersey's health care system would be devastated. the republican plan would cut $39 billion in health benefits from new jerseyans over the next

decade, leaving families unable to find care and doctors unable to provide it. their plan will throw upwards of $465,000 low --465,000 seniors off medicaid and leave more than 3 million new jerseyans, including 877 thoup -- 877,000 children worrying about whether they'll hit their lifetime benefit. for seniors the republican plan ends medicare as we know it, leaving retirees to worry about whether the system they paid into their entire working lives will be there for them when they need it. their plan would force seniors out of the medicare they know and instead provide an inadequate voucher that they claim will cover the premiums for private insurance. that claim, however, is false, leaving seniors with an increasing out-of-pocket

expenses of over $6,000 a year. it also means immediately higher costs for the more than 126,000 seniors in new jersey who have saved a combined $95 million on prescription drugs because every one of these republican budgets will reopen the gap in prescription drug coverage that we call the doughnut hole. the republican budget also means that one million seniors in new jersey who have already accessed no cost preventive health services such as cancer screenings would now be forced to pay for those screenings out of pocket. and it means that 270,000 seniors and disabled individuals in my home state who rely on medicaid for services such as long-term care will be kicked out of the system. the most shocking thing about all of this is that the radical ryan budget seems to be the least extreme of the republican budgets. for example, senator paul's proposal calls for medicare to end abruptly on january 1, 2014,

while simultaneously decreasing social security benefits and raising the eligibility age to 70. and senator toomey's plan would force seniors off medicare and only provide a modest voucher to purchase moderate coverage -- private coverage i should say. it would slash medicaid by nearly $1 trillion, $180 billion more than even the ryan budget calls for, and shift a massive and untenable burden on the states while leaving millions of families without coverage. how is that fair and balanced? it's not. and we should reject these proposals. here's another fact about the ryan house budget. instead of making college more affordable, more accessible, more achievable, the ryan budget will do the exact opposite. it will create additional obstacles for students that could, according to the study by the education trust, ultimately take pell grants away from a million students. and for those who aren't kicked

out of the system entirely, it will freeze the maximum pell grant award despite tuition raising far above the rate of inflation. and to add insult to injury, the ryan budget would allow the interest rate on subsidized stafford loans to double. a debate that is all too familiar to this body. now, my republican colleagues claim to support lower rates, then filibustered then. now they're proposing a budget that would allow the interest rates to double. so for more than 0*e6% of -- sor more than 60% of students who receive pell grants but also take out loans, they'll be forced to pay double the interest rates on their loans which will only increase with a reduction in pell grants. today receiving some form of higher education is almost a prerequisite for a 21st century career. in fact, young adults with only a high school diploma are almost three times as likely to be

unemployed and earn just over half as much as those with a bachelor's degree. but even as the demand for college graduates in the workforce increases, so have the costs of tuition, making higher education all the more critical as well as for the nation to be the global leader competitive. yet more out of reach for millions of student student if w these plans. how is that fair and balanced? it's not and it just shows the misguided priorities that are behind these proposals. middle-class families can't afford it, seniors can't afford it students can't afford it, and that's why we can't afford to let it happen. madam president, i yield back the balance of my time. and i yield the a different deah respect to what we have right now. i believe we do have a budget in place for this year and next year. the place where i would agree with the gentleman is we don't have the longer-term plan.

the problem is, are we really going to get all sides to get off their fixed positions right before a national election? and that's a matter of judgment. i don't believe that it's going to happen. i was part of the simpso simpson-bowles commission. senator gregg and i were the ones who got a commission appointed. he and i were part of the gang of six. that would have reduced the debt from what it would otherwise be by more than $4 trillion, depending on what baseline you use, even more than that. and that's the minimum we need to do. i actually tried to convince the commission to do $5.6 trillion. that was my -- that was my proposal with the commission. the $5.6 trillion package of

deficit reduction and debt reduction. why did i pick that? because we could balance the budget in ten years if we did. but i do want to go back to this question of about whether we've got a budget right now for this year, and i really say, with respect, i believe it is very clear we do. the budget control act -- not a budget resolution but a law -- said very clearly that the allocations, aggregates and levels of spending shall apply in the senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012. that identical language follows in 2013. let's put up the next -- that -- and so, pursuant to the budget control act, in april i provided to the appropriators and the

authorizers these budget allocations for appropriations, for security, discretionary budget authority for 2013, $546 billion; for nonsecurity discretionary budget authority, $501 billion. that's a total of -- on budget of $1.4,000,000,000,000. mandatory spending, $815,671,000,000,000 for a total of $1,862,671,000,000. then to the authorizing committees. i went through some of these numbers previously. the agriculture, nutrition, forestry -- $13,397,000,000. on entitlements for that same committee, $124,580,000,000.

on armed services, $184,6 $184,698,000,000. on banking, housing, and urban affairs, $22,167,000,000. again, i could go through every committee, but there it is. the appropriations spending limits have been provided to the appropriators. the authorizing committees have been given their designations. so for this year we have spending limits. i see senator paul is here, and it is his time, so i will -- i thank the senator for his courtesy. i would just say, for this year and next, it's clear we have spending limits put in place. the place -- what we don't have is the longer-term plan. that's where i would agree with the gentleman. and the question is, is there

any prospect of the two sides coming together, getting off their fixed positions, right now? i doubt that very much. senator paul is here, and he was -- had this time -- 10 minutes at this juncture. senator paul. mr. paul: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: we're currently borrowing $50,000 a second. we borrow $4 billion a day, and we're borrowing over $1 trillion every year. the situation has gotten out of control, and i think the situation of our deficit in our country threatens our country, and in fact i think it is the number-one threat to our national security and our security as a nation is this overwhelming burden of debt. many economists have said that this burden of debt is actually causing us to lose a million

jocks a year. it crowds out private investment because we've got to take care of financing this enormous debt. amidst all of this, we have rules in place. there's a budget act that we've had in place since the 1970's that requires that this body put forward a budget. the problem is that we have no budget and had no budget for three years. now, you would say, how can this be when we have a law that says that the majority party has to have a budget? and yet we have no budget. they are in defiance of the law. then if you come to us and you say, well, we want money spent on "x" item, we can't even do anything about it because there are no appropriation bills. if you don't have a budget, you don't have appropriation bills, you can't alter up or down the appropriations bills because we don't have a budget to go by. in fact, every bit of spending that we do up here is in defiance of our own rules, because we're supposed to compare the spending bills to

the budget, and we have no budget. now, many of us have been promoting something new. this would be a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. because we don't seem to be doing a very good job balancing a budget. now, you in your families, when you have less money coming in you spend less moafnlt every american family has to do this. why can't washington simply spend what comes in? shouldn't be that complicated. but they aren't obeying their own rules, so i think we need stronger rules. that would be an amendment to the is that you says you must balance the budget. we had a vote on it. 47 of us on our side of the aisle voted for it, and no one on the other side voted for it. our balanced budget amendment to the constitution would require that the budget balance within five years. in that vein, what our office has done is put together a budget that does balance in five years, and it actually over a ten-year period would reduce the

deficit by $2 trillion. ours is the only budget that will balance in five years and begin paying down the debt over ten years. right now congress has an approval rating of 11%. maybe that has something to do with the fact that we aren't doing our job, we aren't passing any budget, much less a balanced budget. if people vote for our budget, we would balance in five years and begin paying down the debt. i think the stock market would be he can stati he can exstatic. currently social security is $6.2 trillion sort of money. the taxes you pay in in social security are less than we pay owvment social security is essentially insolvent. now, you ask, how come my check keeps coming? your check will always keep coming. as the bankruptcy grows deeper and deerntio deeper, your checkl

keep coming. you're already seeing this at the pump. gasoline prices have doubled. it is because the value of your dollar is shrinking. the value of your dollar is shrinking because we print up all this new known pay for this massive debt. it is unsustainable and one way or another it is going to come to a head. will it come to a head through the destruction of our currency paying for this debt? i don't know, but we certain willy-- but we certainly need a budget. people say, why don't you compromise with the other side? we will, but they have to have a budget. if ours balances in five and the other one will promote one that balances in ten, compromise would be 7.5. but if the other side doesn't have a budget, or if the other side has a budget the president put forward a budget, we will vote on that, too. his never balances, so we've got infinity for their side and we've got five years on our

side. what's -- how do you get halfway from infinity to five years? if you're going to compromise, they have to come to the table. we have to engage in a debate. entitlements are 65% of the budget. they call it mandatory spending and nobody wants to do anything about it. social security, medicare, medicaid -- 65% of the budget. if you don't tackle entitlement reform, you can't fix it. we have a proposal on the table. social security reform -- we fix social security. the way we fix it is we gradually let the age rise of eligibility to 70 over about 20 years and we means-test the benefits. not on the current people but on the next wave. my generation will have to wait longer. why? is it because we want to change things? no it's because we're living longer. we all have a longer life expectancy and then we had smaller families. this isn't anybody's fault. i.t. not democrats' fault. it's not republicans' fault. we just had a bunch of large

families born of after world wai i. its a demographic fact. combine that with the fact that we're living longer. you have to make chaifntle but we have a proposal on the tail table. we will fix social security. how do we compromise if the other side won't come up with a proposal? $6 trillion short. social security is $6 trillion in the hole. medicare -- $35 trillion to $40 trillion in the hole. we have a solution. we will give every senior citizen in the country the same health care plan i have, the same health care plan that every senator and congressman has. we're willing to give it to them. you know whose idea this was? senator john kerry of massachusetts, a devment we've taken his idea and put it forward, but we can't get anybody on the other side to talk us to. they have given up. it is an election year. they are not going to do anything this year. we didn't do anything last year.

so we haven't done anything to fix entitlements. we've done nothing to fix social security, nothing to fix medicare. how do you compromise with a side that has no proposition, that won't put anything forward? well, we have a five-year planning that balances in five years and we fix social security, we save social security in perpetuity, which i laughingly say is a long time. we also fix medicare. we save medicare. medicare is face being a $35 trillion to $40 trillion deficit and we're willing to save t but the other side has to come to the table and nobody is showing up to debate these things. no one is proposing any budget on the other side. no one is proposing any entitlement reform. in our budget, we save social security, we save medicare, and we go one step further -- we have tax reform that would help the country, would make it fair. some on the other side say, let's get rid of all those

special loopholes for special interests. we don't t a 17% tax for all businesses, 17% for all person african-american you get to deduct your kids and your hous. no other deductions. no other special interest exemptionexemptions. no other special credits for a special business orent price. a flat 17% for everybody. you would see a boom in this country like you've never seen if we would do it. would what compromise be? maybe maybe the other side wants 25% and i want 17% and we go in the middle and do 22%. that would be compromise but how do we compromise with the other side when there is no budget, there is no entitlement reform proposed from the other side, there is no tax reform proposed from the other side. how do we compromise if there is no other side? if the other side has decided not to show up this year, if this year is going to be a waste of time and everybody's going to

just run for office, maybe we shouldn't be paid this year. maybe you shouldn't pay your congressman, maybe you shouldn't pay your senator this year if we're not going to have proposals from both sides. this means we should be talking about entitlement reform, talking about tax reform, talking about budgets, and it would be give and take. but the only way to get give and take in our country is people need to show up for the debate. we need to do our job. why is there not a committee in washington, not any committee, why is there not any committee meeting every day on how to fix and save social security? nobody's talking about it. there is no such committee. why is there not a committee discussing medicare reform? meeting every day, republicans and democrats talking and figuring out how to -- a way out of this. there is no such committee. why isn't there a committee on tax reform discussing how we could take our tax code simpler and make it easier for people to figure out and make the rates

lower so we could spur the economy. every time we've lowered interest rates, unemployment is cut in half. when we had an upper rate of 90%, kennedy lowered it to 70%, unemployment was cut in half. when reagan lowered the top rate from 70% to 50%, unemployment was cut in half. when reagan lowered it again from 50% to 28%, unemployment was cut in half. we as a country have to decide that we don't want to punish rich people, we don't want to punish corporations. we work for these people. we want them to do better. do oil and gas industry employs 9.2 million people and pays $86 million a day in taxes. we want them to do better. let's don't punish them with more taxes and regulations, let's make their taxes and regulatory burden lower so they can employ more people in our country. so these are the decisions we have to make as we go forward. we have a budget that can

balance in five years. it's what our country needs. i think people would react, and the marketplace in particular would react in a tremendous fashion if we would move forward and vote for a budget. the republicans will have four or five budgets presented, some of them that balance in five, some of them balance in eight, some of them balance in 28, but at least we're trying, we're showing up and we're presenting budgets that would balance, at some finite period of time. i tell people if it's never going to balance, it shouldn't even be presented. if it's not going to balance in your lifetime, if you say it's going to balance in somebody else's lifetime when somebody else is going to be here in congress, you've abdicated your responsibility. we can do better than this. the american people expect us to do better than this. the american people expect us to show up and do our job. we will today vote on these budgets, and what i would ask

the american people is look and see how your representatives vote. look and see how your senators vote. look and see whether or not your senators believe in balancing the budget. or if they think doesn't matter, we'll just print up more money. but realize if their answer is to just print up more money, if their answer is that deficits don't matter, if that is their answer, i want you to get mad and i want to you get angry and i want to you get even. every time you go to the gas pump and pay four bucks for pump gas, i want you to know why the gas is rising, not because the gas is more precious, your dollar is less valuable. it's because of the massive debt we run and the irresponsibility that nobody is willing to tackle it. there are some on our side who are willing to make the tough decisions. is it easy to stand here and say to the people in kentucky and the people in america that the only way we can save social security is by letting the age

of eligibility rise? you think that's popular? you think i'm saying that to pander and try to get votes? i'm saying that because it's the only thing that will save social security and the only thing that's going to save our country is we have to make difficult decisions. and so i think that's what needs to happen. people need to say are you willing to make the tough decisions? are you willing to stand up and say this is how we would fix social security, this is how we'd save the system. this is how we would correct this deficit that's dragging us all down. one side is willing to do that. i'm willing to do that, and i hope that my fellow senators will today consider voting to balance the budget. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time -- madam president, i yield back my time. a senator: plapts? the presiding officer: --. a senator: ,madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: we are waiting for a

number of senators who have sought time and they'll be domg the floor and we'll hear from them momentarily. let me just say senator paul is sincere. one place i agree with him is that the country has to face up to our deficit and debt situation. as i indicated earlier, i was part of the bowles-simpson commission. we agreed to and voted on significant reforms, spending cuts but we also used some additional revenue to have a balanced plan. and i believe that has to be the test for any of the proposals that are made here. and as i see the proposals coming from our republican colleagues, they flunk that test. because they have no balance. there's nothing on the revenue side. in fact, there are deep

additional tax cuts aimed at the wealthy among -- wealthiest among us in all of their plans. none of the republican plans has less than $150,000 tax cut on average for people with earnings of over a million dollars a year. senator paul's plan is truly a radical plan. he didn't mention a lot of the elements, but he has massive tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. he scraps the entire tax system, goes to a 17% flat tax. that is a massive tax cut for those of us who have higher income. massive tax cut. i can tell you, it would be a massive tax cut for my family. he also cuts discretionary spending, education, energy, by huge amounts. i'll go into that. he cuts health care almost $4 trillion. let's go to the next slide, if

we can in the interest of time. he replaces the current progressive system with a 17% flat tax, he eliminates the estate tax, eliminates it. he eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends. eliminates them. that's -- my goodness. you think about what that would mean. people like warren buffett wouldn't pay almost anything in taxes. the richest people among us. because he eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends. but he's not so generous when it comes to lower-income people. he raises taxes on lower-income people by ending the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, eliminates it. let's go to the next slide just quickly. perhaps most stunning, his answer to saving social security, not a dime of revenue. cut the benefits 39%.

that's what senator paul has got before this body. really? is that what we should do? massive tax cuts for the wealthiest among us and make up for it by cutting social security benefits 39%. that's the paul plan. he increases the retirement age three times faster than the fiscal commission plan. and he shifts to something he calls progressive indexing for those earning above $33,000, which cuts their benefits even more deeply over time. now, people, i respect his desire to do something about deficits and debt. but the answer is not massive tax cuts, eliminate the estate tax, eliminate capital gains taxation. no taxes.

wow. warren buffett should send him a thank-you letter. and cut social security 39%? that could -- i could go into the other details. he cuts energy dramatically, he cuts education, what's his education cut -- i think we've got it there. we'll go into the specifics of that. massive cuts. so that we can have more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. trillions of dollars. and then cut social security 39%. wow. that is breathtaking. that is breathtaking. we'll see how many colleagues are going to stand up and support that in a vote later today. if senator -- senator durbin is here, thank you him very much for his involvement. he has been -- not only served on the simpson-bowles commission but also on the group of six and

has spent hundreds of hours trying to find a way on a bipartisan basis working together to come up with a plan that's really balanced and fair to get us back on track and to save trillions of dollars on the debt. and i applaud him for it. he has shown enormous courage and also extraordinary energy in trying to get our country back on track. senator durbin. mr. burr ie mr. durbin: my thanks to the senator from conrad. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: the retirement of senator conrad is great loss to the senate and to the nation. we have only six or seven months left to do something significant, and it will be easier to do it when kent conrad is with us and i hope we can achieve it. i want to say for those who have said over and over again it's time for a budget resolution, it bears repeating that we passed the budget enforcement

act which is a law. a resolution is just that, a resolution passed by the house and senate recommending our spending levels. a budget law passed by congress, signed by the president has the force of law, and it in fact is going to determine our spending levels for the next year. so the people who come to the floor and say isn't it about time we had a budget resolution so we knew what we were going to spend next year? we do. we passed it on a bipartisan basis. in fact, the republican senate leader voted for it. so it isn't like it wasn't a bipartisan effort. it was all the way and the president signed it. and it guides our spending. but let me speak for a moment about those thrilling days of yesteryear as they used to say on the old radio serial, going back to 2001 if you can stick with me for a minute, that was the last time the united states of america had a balanced budget. who was president at the time? it was president clinton, left that budget for president bush. and that represented i think two

or three successive years of balanced budgets. so i said to my staff take a look at the last time our budget was in balance and take a look at today and compare spending and revenue between those two periods of time. i think the senator from north dakota told me once something like 19.6% of g.d.p. in that year of balance was being spent, 19.6% was being raised in revenue, and there was the balance. now we have drifted to the point where i think that spending is around 24%, is that close? and that the actual revenue is down to 14%, the 10% delta equals the deficit. but in specifics what's happened in that period of time -- and this thanks to senator inouye, chairman of the appropriations committee, is a chart which kind of tells the story. i'll try to -- i'm going to use your easel if you don't mind. take a look. the blue line of course, the

bar represents the spending, and revenue in fiscal year 2001, last time we had a balanced budget. and the red bars represent the fiscal year we're in, 2012. and so i asked him to compare and here's what we found. the security in there represents the of course military spending, primarily military spending. in the period of time since we were last in balance until today, we have seen roughly a 60% increase in military spending. understandable. two wars, all the buildup that's been part of it. 60% increase. let's look at nondefense spending. that would be everything from medical research, building highways or helping to build highways, education, basic health care and such. what has happened in real dollars since we were last in balance in that nonsecurity discretionary spending, flat, zero increase. zero increase. but if you listen to the debate over the last two years here, you would think it was all the

increase, all the increase that we've seen in our deficit is atrib -- attributable to these nonsecurity programs. those are the ones we've been cutting away at and they represent some 16% of the budget. we cut away at t