cost of food and home heating oil and gas and health care did, in fact, rise. although the cpi failed. the chain cpi makes it worse, not better. social security is fully solvent through 2036. we can prolong that throughout the next 75 years by applying a payroll tax to income above $250,000. i support a bill that does this. i hope to include it in any deficit reduction plan. i thank you for your dedication to the committee. for your integrity. i look forward to working with you to improve it and passing a much needed deficit reduction plan. we could go through the regular routine of reserve fund votes back and forth, and a climactic vote on the senate floor. that has never been a very salutary process in my experience on this committee.

a crucible for the necessary compromise that will lead us forward. it may be holding out too much hope to take on the role. but you placed your bet on that. if you're right, it will be a historic decision. >> senator graham is recognized for statement. hold it down and it works better. >> maybe we've run out. >> maybe we have a bad one. >> number one, let's pick up with the idea that the chairman is not the problem. the chairman is in a solution of gang of six. several members are on the committee here.

on the revenue spending side. so clearly your heart is in the right place. i'm sure that was a tough political exercise. but institutionally we're broken. and that's how you get to 10%. i don't expect 100 senators to agree on a budget to get the nation out of debt. i expect 65 of us to do that. the only way to do that is to have a compromise. and the only way to have a compromise is to have a base document to start working on. now we have a statutory oblg gags. obligation. i reject that this meets our statutory obligation. we're supposed to produce a budget. and people know what that means. and i would really argue to the committee as a whole if the debt ceiling legislation is going to be seen as a budget, why do we exist? i don't remember votie ing on t.

i don't remember having input. it was done by a handful of people somewhere they met. i don't know what they're talking about. it would destroy the the committee if we buy the idea that's an acceptable budget institutionally for the senate. as republicans and democrats we need to reject the notion that what we did to raise the debt ceiling is an adequate substitute for what this committee is chartered to do under law. and i think it would destroy the value of this committee. so i absolutely reject that what was done to raise the debt ceiling is an adequate substitute, legally or common sense wise for the role of the committee. now the 2010 election, if it was about anything, it was about saving america from walking off a cliff that will damn the nation, republican, democrat, independent as a whole. and i think most of the people on this committee who came out of the 2010 election cycle felt like they had a mandate to do something different. that's why they wanted to be on

this committee. the chairman had the feeling for a very long time. we need to get ahead of this problem. so i think this is a serious political miscalculation by our democratic leadership. you're not going to lose your job because you're trying to solve america's problems. you're going to lose your job in you just do the same old thing. you know, i'm going to vote for the ryan budget, even though i would like to change parts of it. i honestly believe, mr. chairman, that the public in 2010 was trying to tell us you've gone too far. you let it get too out of control. and we're demanding something new. after this great election we just had, the voice of the people did not resonate very long. in 2012 here's what every republican on the committee is going to say, i hope. if you give us control of the senate, we're going to produce a budget statutorily deal a

revenue on the table. we'll work with the democratic colleagues. we're going to produce a document because you have to do that at home. no family can afford to do what we've done up here. so i think we're missing a great opportunity. i think we're letting the people down who elected the new congress and to my new colleagues who have coming on the committee thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, thank you very much. thank you for the opportunities to talk about my views on budget plans being presented i want to take a brief moment to do that. it's important. the process here. you've heard me say it before.

here we are in the process of talking about a budget while apropriators are already down the hall doing the work. so for us to believe that and budget and assume the appropriate tors will change all the the actions they're doing is misleading. the second part is the budget, which is so -- process is somewhat unusual to me. the mayor has to sign it and agree to it. we assume we do all this and the president signs it and agrees to it is mistaken. so the one thing he did sign and agree to, and i know people have

different views that we've heard a little bit about it here on the budget control act, i'll tell you, the budget control act is in place. we had a chance to commenting on it. we had a chance to debate it. we did that. some voted for it. it passed. the president signed it. that's where we're at. we can rehash all that. we can debate all that. i'm not as new as the ten folks. i'm an eight person. i came here with a group of people who wanted to see something done differently. let's talk about what the long-term future is. that's what we can impact with the time that we have and the opportunity that we have and this process. when you look at this agreement,

the fiscal commission plan, we can see pieces we like. but it's a long-term blue pript. if there's anything the committee can do, that's something i embrace. it's not going to be fun. what we're going to do. if we're going to be frank with colleagues on the other side people are sick and tired of debating the process. that's what we have a chance to do. i can argue that we should have a budget debate the chairman knows my views. i'm not afraid of any amendment. bring it on. i don't care. i was on there my first year. it was a joke. it was a waste of time. message-rama is what i call it.

we all slapped ourselves on the back and said we did a great job. we walked out. the president didn't have to adhere to the budget. i would like the executive branch to adhere to the aproep ray tors. why not set up a process that we lay out a long-term plan. it's important to remember we already reduced the deficit through budget cuts over the last few years. significant process. almost $2 trillion. hundreds comes from spending cuts that we've done. if you look at the committee, where we've been, i know some people think we can do better. i agree. we've come a long ways in three years. we have done some reduction. we have a stronger economy. as i mention as a former mayor, you cannot solve this problem by

just cutting your way out of it. there's no way. i don't care what commercials people will run in the future. it gets me on this. or what brochures people are going to write up, or what one liners people are going to say. i made the deal with these. it's a combination of things. but first off the only approach is going to have a direct impact on local and state governments, which really means more government. no, that's law enforcement, that's teachers. that's people taking care of kids from day care assistance. it's juvenile justice systems. it's our court systems. it's everything that you can imagine. so i commend the chairman for taking a balanced approach. a nonpartisan approach. i remember the bowles-simpson plan came out, so many people wrote press releases. now we have them in front of us. we don't need a super committee. this is the budget committee. this is what i thought the budget committee does. we get a chance to do this

long-term. i said before when i came -- the fiscal commission plan before us today is a very good start in this direction. it carries a lot of credibility with me. if you look at the the architect as a plan, as they said, it's very balanced. i respect the plan because it's broad based approached. including defense and mandatory spending. including health care.

it tackles both mandatory and discretionary spending. i want to point out the plan reduces the overall spending by $3 trillion. $840 billion in mandatory savings. below during the reagan era. on the revenue side, i wholeheartedly support the message of tax reform on this plan. which is basically a plan that is a bipart san plan that's already on the table. senator wyden and myself proposed. comprehensive tax reform is the best way to reduce our deficits through lowering rates, broadening the base. over ten years the revenues will average 19.7% of gdp, which is the same as under president

clinton. the tax reform worked in 1986. it can work again. and it creates jobs. you can't associate the total '86 debt reform with the millions of jobs that came after it. the extra two days on him. as they figured out the last number that they had to play. or they thought they were getting a refund, did not get. doing so will push economic growth and say, comprehensive tax reform. that increases revenue. it will lower corporate tax rates to make american businesses more competitive, which will help business create good jobs. increased tax revenues without raising tax rates. in the provision that i

staunchly support and others that i simply am not on board with. i'm concerned about the government wide chained cpi that he talked about, which will produce benefits for current retirees. the chained calculation to cut can accumulate over time. it will get worse for people who are just retiring and lucky enough to live long lives. future hit the hardest. social security doesn't contribute to the deficit. worse, the plan e limb nalts a fundamental feature that has been part of the program since the beginning. under the law, everyone receives nearly the same level benefit, unrelated to wages. this proposal among other things raises the normal and early retirement ages and cuts the cost of living adjustment, which already under measures the inflation rate. that means benefit would not keep up with increases in the cost of living.

most troubling. this budge proposal endorses the changes. social security cannot run on a deficit. this is harder for older americans because it would increase their costs. lower benefits and higher cost copays. another problem i have with the plan is it increases gas taxes by 15 cents. >> senator, might i say we've gone over time. >> i'll summarize and submit this. >> that would be good. >> we're right on the nose. let me just say that there are some good things and there are bad things with the proposal. i am looking forward to the debate. i hope we don't just keep hammering over what we should and what we could and what we will do. i think this proposal lays out a broad based bipartisan support, and i look forward to the great debate that we have here. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i appreciate the senator from alaska suggesting this is is good starting point, and i think if it is a good starting point, there's got to be an end point somewhere. that means we have to have vote and have an opportunity to amend it and do what we would do if we were marking up a budget. and i would say that we are on this side sympathetic to you. we feel your pain. we liked it better when you were going rogue and actually talking ability doing a real markup. but there's been a lot of suggestion that the bca is the budget. that was the replacement and substitute for having a budget. i would argue the bca is what you end up with when you don't have a budget. last year when we didn't write a budget we ended up at the 11th hour rushing to cobble something together to meet a deadline on the debt limit. we didn't address the important issues of entitlement reform and tax reform, which the super

committee was supposed to address. there again, that's something that should have been our responsibility through this process. and let me just say, too, that i think that the suggestion that this be a starting point is all fine and good. we've had votes on the president's budget here last year. the house voted on the president's budget this year. the house voted on some version of the bowles-simpson commission plan. and it only got 38 votes over there. my understanding is, i don't know, i haven't seen it yet, but your mark is higher in terms of taxes and spending than what was voted on and only received 38 votes in the house. but i would argue that we can do big things around here. we need to do big things around here. and if you look throughout history, when faced with the crisis, this institution has demonstrated the capacity in working with the white house to create big things. social security reform in '83,

that was a republican president. '86 was fax reform. that was republican president and democrat house. '96 was welfare reform, democrat president and republican congress. there's a history and a precedent when necessary for us to do some big bold things. and so it really is unfortunate that what we're left with right now is not doing our job and again, i don't think any of us here are suggesting that you don't approach us with the best of intentions and want to get a budget, but we understand, too, that the statements that have been made by members of your leadership are going to make it very, very difficult for that to happen. even if we were to produce a budge, to actually get a vote on the floor. and so many of us on this side are disappointed. i think there's an expectation by the american people who have to live within budgets that congress ought to do its job. and when you're talking about

massive amounts of dealt and massive deficits and tremendous need for a general junuine, ser reform, it can happen. it takes leadership not only from here, but from the white house. and in my view, we've not had a president who is leaning in to the big challenges that we face. it was evidenced by his budget, which as i said, got zero votes in the house of representatives. so i think it's unfortunate we are where we are. my hope would be that at some point we could come forward and actually produce a budget and have a debate where we have votes and have an opportunity to talk about what i think are the big issues facing this country and the crisis ahead of us if we don't act soon. so i would just simply say that i think most of us on this side, you probably heard many of them already speak are ready to go to work. i thought we were going to try

to get some place to the floor of the united states senate where all members have an opportunity to try and improve and strengthen and move us in a direction that will put our country on a more >> i thank the senator. senator warner is recognized for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize about having to step out for a little while. you know, thank you for breaking a little glass. this was lord knows not the traditional approach. lots of probably ideas about how this came about or why it came about. but as a guy who's only been here three years, you know, kind of the process here around this document that seems to be more about gotcha for future -- for

future electoral campaigning process than how you actually try to reach a common ground on a plan that 65%, 70% of us could actually agree upon that would solve the problem, you know, i think is a much better approach. i know -- lord knows i know this simpson-bowles plan which i have more than a passing familiarity with will make -- will make folks on both sides of the aisle, some folks on both sides of the aisle really upset. i think that's great. because i think it means there may actually be a chance for the -- for those of us who think there are 65 or 70 of us who actually could find common ground, it might give us a chance to get at the bat. clearly, for all of the merits

or demerits that the -- you know, the ryan budget has coming out of the house, you know, it's not going to become law because it comes out as a partisan vehicle. if you were to put a democratic proposal here that eked out of the budget committee by one vote and got 52, 53 votes at the end of the day, it's not going to become law. because our colleagues on the other side aren't going to feel like they've got some ownership in it. at least with this document, and there have been now super committee, simpson-bowles, rivlin-dominici, gang of six, they've all been out there, have come up with a plan that's got a mix of tax reform, entitlement reform. some additional cutback in domestic discretionary.

some cutback in defense. so i think this is a good idea as a starting point on where we go. i'll just make a couple of other comments. for those of us, i think about you and senator crapo, all of the hours we spent on gang of six and some of the critiques that we didn't fully finish. i still think we were much further along than some in the press gave us credit for. but that sure as heck didn't happen overnight. that took enormous weeks and weeks and months of back and forth and negotiating and trying to understand each other's perspectives in ways that i think were valuable. i think the opposite of that was the -- was the budget control act. which in a moment of crisis was thrown together and was -- i just have to tell you from my perspective was kind of my single biggest moment of embarrassment of being a united

states senator when i think we did an enormous disservice to this country and to any kind of creeping economic recovery as we limped out of that late july and early august and threw up something that, you know, in earlier days we might have all been accused of did you read the bill? but we had no choices because there hadn't been the preliminary work done. and we set up downstream events that now we're trying -- living to rue because we didn't have enough time to try to get it right. if we do this right in this process, maybe before the election, but clearly after the election, this committee could actually come up with a product that could serve as the template for our colleagues in both the house and the senate. and i echo some of the comments my colleagues have made. it's going to take the president involved in this as well. three or four quick, quick last points. i know i'm late in this and other colleagues want to speak.

i do think it's important to remember as we have had this debate, we still are in this period of extraordinary -- an extraordinarily lucky time with interest rates at their all-time low. it's important to recall every 100 basis points increase in interest rates adds $1.3 trillion to the debt over a ten-year time frame. so the notion of getting $4 trillion to $5 trillion off of the debt if we end up running against a period where the bond markets no longer wants to -- thinks we're the least ugly girl on the -- let me see. how do i rephrase that, senator portman. cleanest dirty shirt. much, much better way to rephrase that. we could be in a heap of trouble. i would again recall my colleagues, if there's one thing i keep drilling down on, you

know, federal spending at 25% of our gdp. all-time high. revenues 15%. 70-year low. it seems to me that -- senator conrad and senator portman will correct me if i'm wrong. the only times we've been in rough budget balance in the last 70 years has been when revenues and spending have been between 19% and 21%. somewhere in that range. doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you've got to cut spending and generate additional revenues. i hope as we go forward on this discussion the three things that i would hope that we would work on beyond kind of moving off this frame and updating it, one would be, and i would give enormous, enormous credit to senator crapo and senator coburn on this, is that if we were able to put together a long-term plan, you got to have a real enforcement mechanism. so if the economy recovers both on the spending side and on the revenue side, there's no way to,

you know, wave those budget points of orders or slip in things late at night. and i would argue for -- or offer for the committee's consideration the very, very good work that with the assistance senator conrad put in on as tight of straight jacket as you can imagine on making sure spending caps are not done away with. including a 67-vote threshold. i'm not even sure lindsay graham could get 67 votes on most items. so real spending enforcement. second, i have to tell you, you know, i disagree with the president on the idea that -- that if we are going to deal well on the revenue side, that we can solve this problem with only getting more revenues from the very top 1% or 2%. i believe that this is a national crisis of such that we all have to step up. i think i have to step up in a much more responsible way as somebody who's in that -- not

even the top 2%. maybe even a little higher percent. i think there's something wrong when 47% of americans don't pay any federal income tax. and there needs to be at least a deminimus amount for folks above some level of poverty to be paying in so we've all got skin in the game. i understand they pay sales tax, gas tax and others. in terms of supporting our national defense, supporting this crisis, we've got to have a tax reform system that's going to have more americans have skin in the game. and i know this is an area that we had spent a lot of time on. i think simpson-bowles did not great work on a number of areas, but i think there's more to be done in the entitlement area. particularly around health care. we have to be a little more open to ideas that are a bit more controversial. and, you know, the one thing that i -- that simpson-bowles had that none of the subsequent

other plans included, i guess just because it was too radioactive, but i'm still all in with a budget plan that would include -- let's get a fix on social security as well in this. i know senator johnson and i have talked about in terms of actually fixing it, one of the easiest ones. there's no blame here other than blaming the doctors we're all living too long. a lot of this is just about math. so i commend the chairman and the ranking member. i hope they'll lead us in a way that this can become a productive discussion and wouldn't it be great if this budget committee, you know, rolled up its sleeves and we won't have to be called a gang and we actually came up with a product that might end up being the framework of how we get this great national -- potential national tragedy off our backs and our country headed back in the right direction. with that i yield. >> i thank the senator. senator portman's recognized for