cuts over those that were in the budget control act of last summer. no additional spending reductions at all. $2.1 trillion in spending cuts over ten years, no more than that. but your budget calls for $2.6 trillion in new taxes. so that is a tax budget. president obama at one point stated that he thought that we should haves $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increase. so we're so far from that, i'm amazed. now, looking at the house version of simpson/bowles, they did a -- they had a trillion less in tax increases, and they did cut spending by about $600 billion. but that was their version of it and it went down dramatically with only 38 votes. so i just want to say to you, our people are ready to participate. we're disappointed that the

majority party has decided not to go forward with a plan for the future, to confront the debt challenges that we have. i won't use up any more time. i will give -- offer for the record my statement. we've got a large number of people here. i know they would like to speak. again, let me say how much i've enjoyed working with you. and you did note that simpson/bowles laid out some valuable plans that should have been a part of any future budget plan for america, and it was designed to move right after 2010. so i have to think that the president deserves great -- an expression of great disappointment that he did not seize that moment and begin that discussion, and then we could have really gone into it and maybe there would have been a better chance at that point. but he definitely decided that

he would not lay out a realistic plan for the future and is actually committed to attacking those like congressman ron who have laid out one. so i've been very disappointed at that. so here we are. your remarks raise all the important issues that face our country. we ought to listen to what you say and then bring to bear our own philosophies and approaches to government as we wrestle with the key issues you've listed. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the ranking member for his statement, and i thank him for his courtesy throughout this year and the professionalism of he and his staff. i appreciate it. senator murray? >> well, mr. chairman, thank you very, very much for your longtime leadership and consistency and hard work on getting this congress, this country on track to a better place. and i really appreciate the tremendous work you are doing and continue to do on this. you know, there are two very

separate issues that are being talked about here, and i want to be clear about the distinction because i think they're already becoming confused. the two issues are the fiscal year 2013 spending levels and the need for a long-term balanced and bipartisan deficit reduction plan. the first issue, the fiscal year 2013 spending levels, for next year, is easy. it's already done. in august of last year, democrats and republicans came together. we all know that. we agreed to the budget control act to cut spending and put in place a process for additional deficit reduction. the purpose of that bipartisan agreement was to move towards serious deficit reduction and to give some consistency to the federal budget so americans wouldn't be threatened with the government shutdown every few months. that bipartisan deal set the levels for next year's discretionary spending, which allows us now in congress to do our jobs and work to allocate our resources as we must do

every year, towards investments in jobs and infrastructure, maintaining our commitment to service members and veterans, and protecting our middle-class families, everything else we do with our appropriations bills every year. that was the agreement we came to. speaker boehner shook on it. minority leader mcconnell shook on it. majority leader reid signed on. i joined with many of my colleagues voting on it, putting our names on it. and president obama signed it into law. it became the law of the land. and senate democrats fully intend to honor our word and stick to that bipartisan levels for this next year. and i must add i'm really disappointed in less than nine months after we all voted and shook on, the house republicans turned around and intended to break that, but that is clearly not part of what we all felt we had shook on and voted on. but despite what we're hearing from them, the budget control act, which this budget committee is designed to do, has been voted on. it's in law. it's settled.

we have a lot of challenges in front of us as a nation, and we can't afford to relitigate bipartisan deals every time somebody makes some noise in a meeting. so i'm very glad that you, mr. chairman, have decided to focus this committee on advancing a real long-term balanced and bipartisan deficit and debt reduction package. basically, you're saying to us, let's look forward, not look backwards. and as i saw during my chairmanship of the commit on deficit reduction, i know as other members of that committee know, as you know, that is not going to be easy. we're going to have to make some very difficult choices as a nation about our priorities over the long term. and there are significant differences between the two parties when it comes to the values that drive our approaches between tackling some of these tough fiscal challenges. that's why i really think it is good that you have put the bipartisan simpson/bowles plan in front of us, and for this

committee, then to have the time to really seriously look at and begin to give this committee's input and to begin to build on. it's a plan that has drawn support from both sides and both ends of the political spectrum, and i know of no individual member agrees with every single part of it. in fact, there's some i disagree with pretty strongly. but i think is-it-is a very productive, smart starting point for this committee in the interests of moving towards what we need to get to in this year, which is a bipartisan comprehensive deal. i think one of the most important things about you laying down this mark is that it puts everything on the table. it doesn't wall off some pieces or declare certain parts off limits because one side or the other doesn't think they ought to be touched. and i think that is a critical part of this because every single bipartisan group that has put together a plan has done so in a balanced way, every single one of them, and it is the only

way we'll be able to get something. that means we have to, as you describe, mr. chairman, look at both sides of the ledger. it means making sure that we are responsibly cutting spending. in making sure our entitlements programs seniors and vulnerable families depend on are secured for the next generation. it means examining where we can save money, even on the defense side. and it means raising revenue. and for me, that, of course, puts on the table what i think is an important part of that, is looking at what wealthiest americans and biggest corporations are paying today in relationship to fairness to many middle-income families. and i would just say that at the end of the day we have to all remember around this table that numbers on a page are not what a budget is about. it's about the real people across this country that are being impacted. this is really about our future. mr. chairman, as you have clearly outlined to all of us. and if we are serious about our

work here, we will take what you have laid down in front of us and look at it seriously and give you our input, recognizing the end of this year has some pretty big exclamation points on it and we as a committee have tremendous work in front of us. senator sessions, i understand where you're coming from and your frustration. but i would say this. we can put down a partisan plan here and debate it and have partisan debate, or we can do the work that senator conrad, as chairman of this committee, has always urged us to do, which is seriously look at the future, look t it a in a bipartisan way, use the foundation that's out there and build on that, because that truly is our responsibility at the end of the day. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator grassley is recognized. >> chairman conrad, thank you for calling, or -- i thank you, chairman conrad, for calling a markup of the budget for fiscal year 2013. setting a budget for the country is one of the most basic

responsibilities and fundamental functions of congress. the budget act requires congress to adopt a budget by april 15th. it's a requirement that this senate majority has ignored time and again. in fact, the senate hasn't adopt add budget since april 29, 2009. nearly three years have passed since the senate last adopted a budget. during that time, more than $4 trillion have been added to the nation's debt. we're in the midst of the fourth consecutive year of spending more than -- $1 trillion more than we take in. during this time, the senate democratic majority has failed to propose a budget blueprint that would lay out their priorities for deficit reduction, economic growth, or a path to balance. they've said proposing a budget is, quote/unquote, foolish. it's no wonder our nation is driving towards a fiscal cliff of deficits and debt. there's no one in the democrat

leadership willing to take a hold of the wheel. while i'm glad that we're meeting to consider a budget resolution put forward by the chairman, i'm puzzled by today's exercise. first the chairman has said repeatedly that we already have a budget in place for this year and next. the chairman and majority leader reid feel that the budget control act was a budget resolution. so, then, why are we here? why do we need to mark up a budget resolution if the budget control act was truly a budget resolution? the answer's quite clear. the budget control act is not a budget. president obama clearly agreed when he proposed his budget. house republicans and democrats alike agreed when they voted on seven budget resolutions authored by both republicans and democrats. the democratic leadership and the senate stands alone in their belief that the budget control act was a budget resolution. is it because they have no idea on how to balance a budget?

contain out-of-control spending? grow the economy? create jobs? well, i don't know. i'm also confounded by what i've read in the press, that this markup will end today with no consideration of the amendments and without a vote on the chairman's budget resolution. a markup entails debate, amending and actually marking up a resolution. but today is nothing more than speeches with a suggestion that maybe we'll meet again sometime near the end of the year to offer amendments and vote on a resolution. the chairman was quoted yesterday as saying, "this is the wrong time to vote in committee. this is the wrong time to vote on the floor. i don't think that we will be prepared to vote before the election." do we need to add another $1 trillion to the national debt before it's time to vote on a budget resolution? or maybe even $2 trillion before we vote? if now is not the time to lead,

propose bold solutions and take action, when is? the american people are going to pay a heavy price for the unwillingness and inability of the senate democratic leadership to lead and offer solutions. i understand the predicament that our beloved chairman is in, and i'm sorry that, for the way that this process is being treated and he is being treated by the leadership. he deserves better because he's been a leader in calling for fiscal control for a long period of time. despite what he knows should be done and wants to do, his party leadership doesn't seem to want him to do it. once again, the senate democratic leadership and president obama are content on being absent from the discussion. there are no solutions, no leadership. there's only failure and punting until after the next election. we have a moral obligation to offer serious solutions for today and for future generations. this exercise would be humorous

if the consequences of the inactions weren't so serious. >> thank you. >> i appreciate your leadership on this committee over many, many years and no one is more dedicated to getting our country on the right course. no one has sent more time in doing that, and we're very grateful for your commitment. as you've said a number of times, and i think it's important to keep repeating, that last year we passed a very tough budget law, and it really has two pieces. i mean, there's a -- put in place ten years of spending caps and a process to enforce spending levels for two years. and that's really what a budget resolution does in the short run. we are not the appropriators. we set the budget caps, the limits, and that was done and in a way that was much tougher than usual. it wasn't called a budget

resolution, but it had a greater force because it was actually signed by the president of the united states. so i feel very confident in that. and there was, of course, put in place a deficit reduction process. i appreciate senator murray's hard work and everybody who was on that committee to try to get us to a point where we had a comprehensive deficit reduction plan. but i do want to say that as chair of the agriculture committee, we took that very seriously. and i reached out to the chairman in the house, chairman lucas, and my ranking member, senator roberts and the ranking member of the house, congressman peterson, and we really did put together a bipartisan plan. we really did come up with spending cuts that involved streamlining, consolidating, reforming programs, everything that the public asked us rightly to do. so i know it can be done. we in agriculture represent about 2% of federal outlays. we proposed a deficit reduction cut that was about 2% of what

was required of the deficit reduction commission, $23 billion. i truly believe we can do it if we have the will, and i know we can because we did it in agriculture. we are proceeding with that deficit reduction as we write a farm bill. so it is a matter of our ability to work together and make that commitment. and when we do it, we can get it done, which is why i know with your leadership before the end of this year that we can actually do this. now, while i don't agree with everything in the simpson/bowles proposal, i think it's a very important place to start. it's a very thoughtful place to start. it's clear we need to support job creation with real tax reform that simplifies the tax code, closes loopholes and tax earmarks, lowers rates for individuals and businesses. i also appreciate that the simpson/bowles proposal recommends fixing a longtime broken physician payment rate system, sustainable growth rate.

many of us have been involved in that. i have been deeply involved in trying to get a long-term fix, and i'm very glad that that's a part of that. however, i don't support efforts that balance the budget on the backs of working families and seniors, because frankly, those folks have had enough. they've faced enough. they have sacrificed enough. and that leads me to the difference between the house and the senate. the house budget committee, which i believe proposed and the house passed a budget resolution that represents absolutely the wrong values. to eliminate medicare, turn it into a voucher system costing over $6,000 more to the average senior, making huge cuts for low-income seniors who are in nursing homes on medicaid, eliminating women's health care, maternity care, that is absolutely the wrong approach and one that i would not support. to force seniors and middle-class families to pay more so that those at the top can get another tax break is the wrong values for our country.

to continue government subsidies or some folks like oil companies are making record profits when we need to refocus on new, emerging technologies is the wrong approach. so, as we go forward looking at this proposal and how we thoughtfully get to the end on a comprehensive tax reform and deficit reduction plan, i'm going to be focusing on making sure that middle-class families are the ones we focus on, that jobs, that opportunities for families are what we focus on, those who have taken a bigger hit in this economy, have sacrificed more than anybody else in this economy. they are the ones that we should be focused on and listening to. and finally, mr. chairman, i would just simply say i think you're in a very unique position with your experience on these issues and your leadership to really help us come to the long term before the end of the year. we have budget cams in place for

this year. what we don't have is a long-term plan or fiscal sustainability and stability. and i'm looking forward to working with you to get that done. >> i thank the senator for her kind remarks. senator is recognized for the senate. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when i hear comments about the house budget, i do get a little bit upset. they've had the courage to vote on it. we have not done that on this side. we keep saying, well, the budget control act is sufficient. if the budget control act is sufficient, why did the president put forward a budget? why didn't he just say the budget control act is sufficient and abrogate his obligation in much the same we're on rho gaiting our obligation? i was delighted -- i was disappointed when the senate

defeated the conrad gregg proposal for deficit commission. i was pleased when the president went ahead and appointed one. and i was again disappointed when -- at his state of the union speech following that. he didn't paint the same bleak picture that hay hthey had pain. america doesn't realize the disaster that we're headed for. and had he painted that picture and then said, but i'll have a budget that will put that forward and put forward the simpson/bowles budget for us to detate and i assume pass if we had that same bleak picture imprinted on the people's minds, but that didn't happen. he came forward with another stimulus budget, just as he did this year. so in 1997, when i first came to washington, our national debt was five and four-tenths trillion dollars. today it's $15 trillion. and without immediate action, that number will continue to increase to a level that's even

more unsustainable. we're spending more today than ever before, and we're seeing trillion-dollar-a-year increases in the debt with no end in sight. what will happen if we don't act and cut spending? we won't be able to afford the military we need. people won't security checks. roads won't be fixed. all our money will go towards paying interest on debt. people shouldn't doubt this is real. there were riots in the streets in greece when their government was forced to face the realities of debt, and their debt was less than ours. i have news for you, our debt per person is more than greece's debt per person. time and time again they've proven incapable of fiscal discipline needed to spend within its means. time and again, the federal government spent more money than it brings in. it's led to the situation we currently face. we're now borrowing over 40 cents on every dollar we spend. for years we've tried to hide it, disguise it, ignore it. we've acted like it's okay to keep spending money we don't have.

we don't have the option any longer. the world today is different than 1947. unfortunately, we are hiding once again today rather than making up a budget resolution that can be conferenced with the majority. while i strongly support the simpson-bowles plan and thank the senators for their service on that commission, one of the key aspects was its bipartisan nature. i wasn't consulted about the plan we're discussing today. ranking member sessions wasn't consulted. this isn't the way legislation is supposed to work. i assume we're going to have a chance to work on that, even though they're past the deadline. we're supposed to come together and do the hard work of the committee. we're supposed to find the areas where we can agree and push them forward. the simpson-bowles plan is a good outline. we need to hammer out the details. i assume in the budget that some of those details can't be done because they're excluded from the budget. but that isn't what we're doing today. in fiscal year 2011, the

government brought in slightly more than 2.3 million in rechb. we overspent. that's an astonishing amount of spending. it can't be sustained. we have the opportunity to change the trend. to do that we have to stop digging. we start by considering serious proposals to curtail federal spending and steer the country back on track to fiscal responsibility. my republicans colleagues introduce cost saving measures and proposals, and i've introduced my own bill to balance the nation's budget. while we've done this, where is the president and where are the colleagues in the majority? last year president obama's budget was such an unserious proposal that it failed by a vote of 97-0 in the senate. in the house, the latest budget failed by a vote of 414-0. not a single member was willing to support the president's

budget proposal. in this senate, we haven't passed a budget in more than a thousand days and the budget we're discussing today isn't likely to come to the senate floor for debate until at least after the election. once again we're passing the buck because the majority leader doesn't want his caucus to have to make politically tough votes. i understand that. none of us like to make tough votes. by avoiding votes, he's been avoiding solutions. problems aren't getting solved, and this hurts members more than making some tough votes. at a time when the national debt breaks down to more than 49,000 for every person in wyoming and across the country, there's no justification for business as usual. we cannot wait until it's politically expedient to do what must be done. we cannot keep talking about the problems, promising solution and then shying away from the discussions and votes. citizens across the country are weighing in. their anger is understandable. congressional approval is at an all time low. and the inability to make any

changes to the way government operates has left taxpayers with less and less confidence in congress' ability to manage their tax dollars and take responsible action. i've said it before, but it bears repeating. we cannot continue to punt the tough decisions. right now the decisions we make will be tough and it will cause some pain. if we continue to avoid addressing debt and spending, the pain felt in the future will be much greater. i've heard from a lot of people in wyoming about the national debt, the lack of budget resolution. they've shared different ideas and opinions about what solutions we should focus on, but one message is universal. do something, and do it now. this message should resonate with all of us and galvanize us to come to the table and do what we were sent here to accomplish. instead, it looks like we'll end today with more talk and no action. i repeat the house republicans at least did a budget and voted on it. senate and house democrats

chastised them for the budget. senator toomey has a budget that balances in eight years that he's ready to vote on. here we are today without a voteable plan from the senate democrats. it's too bad. i'm ready to put in the work necessary to pass a budget and get our country on a fiscal path. unfortunately, it doesn't look like we have the opportunity to do that work today. i hope we do in the near future. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. senator crapo is recognized for a statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to say at the outset that i appreciate you bringing forward a proposal, a comprehensive proposal, and seeking to put into play a process that will help us to get where we need to get in the country. i appreciated the hundreds and hundreds of hours that you and i and other members of the group of six, now eight, have put in to trying to find that bipartisan path to get forward,

to move this country into a stable fiscal position. we face a crisis today that is the biggest crisis we have faced with the possibility of the threat of some wars. as far as an internal crisis, this is the greatest crisis i think america has ever faced. we really must have bold, strong action to move forward. and i've looked forward for a long time to this day. when the budget committee would have a comprehensive plan that we could discuss. i do have to say, as i've said to you privately, that i'm discouraged at the same time, though, that although the proposal is being put forward, we are not going to be able to seriously act on it in the committee. i'm very discouraged about the fact that we're not going to move forward and take necessary steps that will help us to build that foundation for the ultimate resolution of this issue by congress. i understand a comprehensive

fiscal plan of the nature that we need to put into place is much bigger than actually a budget resolution can achieve. i understand that there are many pieces of this that will need extensive negotiation to be put into place. and the reason i'm discouraged about the notion that we won't have regular order in this committee is that i believe there are, of those parts of it, that the budget resolution can achieve, and those processes that the budget resolution can put into place, there are many key element that say need to be worked into it. for example, some things need to be taken out of the plan. some things need to be added into the plan. i'll give a couple of specifics about that in a minute. but the point is, we could make significant progress if we could simply have the opportunity in this committee to get into

regular order and let all of these ideas be hashed out and played out. when we talk about what is needed in terms of a comprehensive solution. you've indicated the proposal is in excess of $5 trillion of deficit posture reduction. we need at least that, if not more. as i've looked at the bowles-simpson proposal and the gang of six proposals and others that are out there, it seems to me there's five different elements in a broad sense that need to be included. first is discretionary spending controls. second is major structural reform of our entitlement systems. third is reform and achieving the solvency of the social security system. fourth is an enforcement mechanism, that you've referenced earlier. that is strong enough to make sure that the budget control act or whatever budget this congress adopts are ultimately followed

through on. you know, i've served in congress for a number of years now. i can't recall ever getting to the second year of any budget. because we always get into the first year. by the time we get to the next year, we pass a new budget. or we don't pass a budget at all. even in the first year, we waive significant parts of the budget that we have just adopted through the emergency designation procedure and other procedures. that's why it's so critical that the fourth element be a very powerful enforcement mechanism, which we've negotiated. and the fifth is of course the tax reform. as you said earlier, we have a tax system right now that is unfair. it is expensive to comply with. in fact it's probably -- it would be hard for us to design a tax system that is more unfair or more expensive to comply with, more comp