more anti-competitive to u.s. business interests than the one we have. those five elements are the ones we need to achieve. the reason i go through that is because if we had a chance to do a mark-up, we would then be able to get into the details on some of this. we wouldn't solve everything. i know we would need much more extensive opportunities than a budget resolution would allow for that. let me just give a couple of examples. the enforcement mechanism that i just talked b -- about. i would like to see them adopt the enforcement mechanism the gang of six negotiated. i think it would. i think that amendment would pass this committee. we would be putting into place or at least putting into play a key solution pieces of a broader package. another example would be in the tax arena. as was told to us in both the fiscal commission and in the gang of six and others, one of

the best things we could do for generating more revenue for our economy is to get a tax system that is more competitive and that meets all of the tests that we've discussed here today. that would generate phenomenal economic growth, and that economic growth is the kind of thing to generate additional tax revenues and help us to meet the revenue targets in the proposal. i would like to bring an amendment to change our scoring mechanisms here in congress so that we recognize the dynamic impacts of tax policy and spending policy and utilize that in building the bipartisan agreement to solutions to move forward. i think we could have big progress made on that score, on that level, if we had a chance for a markup. another example is the senator just mentioned that in the agriculture arena, they got the message. they have looked at the targets. republicans and democrats on the ag committees in the house and the senate, and they have

started and made great progress in coming together in agreement, bipartisan agreement to meet those targets. even though we haven't yet enforced them. there are numerous other examples. my point is simply this. i'm very happy to see us getting an opportunity in a structural way in congress to start deliberating about these issues, while we will also need to continue the negotiations outside of the hearing room and wrout side of the committee room. but i'm encouraged that that process will only last a short time, and we will not be in here putting into effect regular order in such a way that we can actually construct and adopt and put into place a lot of the pieces of what will ultimately be needed. and i'll conclude with this. you mentioned what will happen at the end of the year. as i look at it, and i'm sure i'm forgetting some of it. we have the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. we have the sequestration coming into effect. we have the expiration of the

payroll tax holiday. we have the expiration of the unemployment tax extension. unemployment support extension. we will reach the debt ceiling. many of the others, if we don't resolve them yet. many of the other tax policies that we badly need in order to help at least make our current code a little more competitive will be expired and need to be handled. and the list goes on. i just believe -- and the dock fix among many others will come into play again at that point. and i'm forgetting some others. my point is if we can use regular order between now and hopefully the next couple of weeks to build some of the pieces and put them into play that this committee can do, we will give ourselves a much better opportunity when the november-december time frame arrives to be able to put together the kind of fiscal policy plan that our country needs.

i just ask you again, mr. chairman, to reconsider the notion that we won't go into regular order, get the budget considerations in front of us, find those parts that we have to delete in order to achieve bipartisan agreement. find the parts that we can add to it to help build and put into place the pieces of the solution that can then help us later in the year. and adopt a budget. and i just implore you to consider letting this committee do that job. thank you. >> i thank the senator, and i thank him for his extraordinary effort. both as part of the simpson-bowles commission, and as part of the group of six, now the group of eight. you literally have spent hundreds of hours in a very serious way. and i've enjoyed working with the senator. senator cardin is recognized for a statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me just respond very quickly.

i think senator conrad has given us the best chance to achieve those types of results. as i understand what i would consider to be the regular order, if we can have a budget resolution that allows our committees to function, then we have an agreement such as the bowles-simpson agreement, which is a bipartisan effort that many of you have worked on, it seems to me that's the most constructive way rather than getting into the details that the committee's jurisdiction are going to have to get into anyway. and if we are giving up adequate instruction, we can get to that point without the divisiveness that the budget markup normally entails. at least every budget markup i've gone through so far in my short term in the united states senate has been a pretty divisive process. i would just like to make a couple of comments. the current deficit is not sustainable. we all understand that. when you take a look at the

amount of debt that we're accumulating as a percentage of our economy, it's not a sustainable amount. we know we need to do something about it. it will lead to higher interest rates that can be very damaging to our economy. we have a responsibility to develop a credible bipartisan plan to the long-term issues. we have that responsibility. i tell you, i opposed many of the policies that led to these deficits. but i have a responsibility along with every member of the senate to come up with a credible plan to get us out from these deficits. short-term, as the chairman pointed out, we have the budget control act. we have fy-12, fy-13. we have the instructions to our committee. it's stronger than a budget resolution in that it has enforcement end caps. it's signed by the president. after fy 13, we need a game plan. they do that by giving us the bowles-simpson model as a way to move toward.

it's a credible plan. it has third-party validaters as a credible plan. we don't have to look at the democratic sources, the republican sources, this is the -- bowles-simpson has been validated as a credible, bipartisan plan to move the country forward in a long-term budget plan. it's bipartisan. it protects our most vulnerable citizens. i commend the people who served on the commission for making sure we had the protection for our most vulnerable. it's very well pointed out in the commission's recommendations. it's balanced between revenues and spending cuts. there's only two ways to balance a budget. you bring in more revenue or cut spending. and bowles-simpson has a proper balance between the additional revenues and less spending. i applaud their efforts on it. if you look at what this committee should be doing and that is getting the macro instructions to our committees, i would hope that we could reach that consensus.

when the bowles-simpson recommendation came out, i supported the macro numbers. i took exception to some specific recommendations, as i think each one of us has. but that's the work that will be done by the committees of jurisdiction. that's not the work to be done by the budget committee. it's the committee of jurisdiction. i disagree with the tax recommendations. i listened to senator crapo. i think he had a lot of really good ideas. that will be up to the senate finance committee that we serve on. that's how it should work. the chairman's mark allows us to deal with that. it won't come as a surprise i think to any member of this committee, i strongly disagree with specific recommendations of the bowles-simpson committee as it related to federal workers. i thought it was wrong. i thought the way they handled federal compensation and workforce numbers, well, did a disservice to the federal workforce.

i'm going to fight as hard to have jurisdiction over those issues to make my point and to come in with the numbers of bowles-simpson but without the punitive, as i see it, to our federal workforce. and i believe the chairman's mark allows us to do that. it's our responsibility to act. i tell you, i hope that we will act this year. it will only happen if we have a bipartisan agreement to act. we have to listen to each other. if we can do that, we can avoid sequestration. we can remove the uncertainty that's currently in our economy, which is a drag on our economic recovery. it could help our economic recovery. a partisan budget either presented by the democrats or the republicans will not advance the process. i applaud the chairman for recognizes that. if we had the democratic budget, you had a republican budget, it's not going to advance the process. you saw what happened in the house of representatives. you have a partisan republican budget that the house has passed that's not going to pass the

senate. it's not advancing the process of moving forward with a game plan for fy-14 and beyond. so i really wanted to applaud the chairman for his actions. i think it's the right way to move forward. i would be the first to acknowledge that it's a long shot, if we can get this done before the elections. but if we don't move in the chairman's direction, we have no shot. this at least gives us a chance to try to come together and do something that most people think we can't get done. i think the chairman has given us the best possible ability to accomplish those results. i applaud him for his work. >> i thank the senator and would now recognize senator cornyn for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're going to miss your charts. when you're no longer chairman of the committee. we're not going to miss the bad jokes. and the friendly banter.

i want to say how much i appreciate your efforts to bring a budget to the senate floor and how much i sympathize with your dilemma. even though as one of the acknowledged budget experts on capitol hill, there are not very many of them. i'm talking about you, not me. you understand our country faces a looming fiscal crisis. yet, majority leader reed, who determines what measures will or will not be brought to the floor of the senate, has shown no interest in having the senate complete one of the most fundamental duties. which puts you, as chairman of the budget committee, in an awkward position. that's both unfortunate and unfair. at the end of a long and distinguished senate career, you deserve much better, and so do the american people. as members of the committee know, it's been more than a

thousand days since the senate passed a budget plan. and if you don't -- you can't pass a budget if you this vote. best i can tell, there are no current plans for us to vote on any budget this year. either here in the committee or on the senate floor. any working family or small business owner can tell you without a budget it's much harder to address current or future financial problems. the situation in congress, as we see it, as i've tried to describe it, leaves my constituents scratching their heads with amazement. that usually then morphs into outrage as they yell at their television sets, wondering why is it congress can't get its act together and perform some of its most basic responsibilities. it's no wonder without a budget plan, washington will not get its fiscal house in order. this has led to trillion dollar

deficits, a runaway debt that's now larger than our economy and the united states government losing its aaa credit rating. for this reason i'm disappointed the committee will not continue with the markup process and allow members to offer amendments. as a member of the senate armed services committee, the finance committee and judiciary committee, i've come to understand that mark-ups include the process of offering amendments and getting to vote on the amendments. unfortunately, we will not have any of that process this week. again, you can't get a budget if you don't vote. and it appears that everyone except the president and the majority leader thinks it's a worthwhile process to put forward a realistic budget. the house of representatives has had seven votes on different budget proposals. both senator toomey and paul have introduced their own budget proposals in the senate. we also have the president who followed a law and submitted a

budget, but i would note as the senator already has, it did not receive a single vote in the senate last year, nor did the president's budget receive a single vote from a democrat or a republican in the house of representatives this year. i think we have a good idea why no member of the house supported the president's budget. we know from the nonpartisan congressional budget office that the president's budget increases spending every year in the budget window. we know the president's budget would add $10 trillion to the debt. this further weakens our fiscal house and now, of course, every man, woman and child in america owes at least $50,000 in national debt. we also know that the president wants to raise taxes on the american people. of course his budget includes $2 trillion in higher taxes. finally we know the president's budget does not make a serious attempt to strengthen programs like medicare and social

security, which we all know are unsustainable. in other words, the president proposes a big tax increase before dealing with the spiraling cost of entitlement programs, chasing higher spending with higher taxes. this is not a prescription that will either put americans back to work or get our fiscal house in order. i sincerely hope that the majority leader will decide to shelve the political theater on gimmicks like the buffett tax that will do nothing to create jobs or lower prices or solve the debt crisis. we need leadership. we don't need more gimmicks. and delays. the american people have waited long enough. otherwise i'm afraid the public cynicism that has generated a 10% approval rating for congress will only continue to grow in the days and mondays ahead. this will not bode well for anyone. democrats, republicans or

independents. we can -- i know we can deal responsibly with the great challenges that face our country on a bipartisan basis, but it's going to take leadership. i appreciate the leadership that you've shown, mr. chairman, in raising these issues. but i'm disappointed, as my colleagues are that we can't vote on a budget, and it's more of an educational process than it is meeting our statutory duties to take up and consider a budget. but i realize you're restricted by the majority leader's refusal to bring a budget to the floor. he's the traffic cop. he decides what bills will or will not be considered. and he's made it clear he will not allow a budget resolution to come to the floor of the senate because of the imminent elections in november, 2012, not wanting to put any of his members in a position of taking tough votes.

but that's what we're here for. to take tough votes and offer serious solutions. i hope we'll do that. >> i thank the senator. senator whitehouse is recognized for a statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by commending you on your extraordinary leadership of this committee during my service on it. i have continuously been impressed by your patience and by your expertise. it has been a privilege to serve with you, sir, on the budget committee. i'm saddened that this will be your final markup. many may wonder why we are considering a budget resolution. in addition it also included a deeming resolution for the next year which means the appropriations committees can go forward with annual spending bills.

even though we already have a budget, i agree with our chairman this committee can be helpful in focusing attention on a longer term comprehensive deficit-reduction plan. it was a critical first step in getting our deficits under control. much more needs to be done. i commend the chairman for his focus on a comprehensive longer term budget proposal. come the end of the year, these decisions will be forced. if we begin meaningful, bipartisan conversations now, we have the chance in this committee to play a significant role in those discussions. before considering any deficit reduction plan, i would like to remember that when president clinton left office in 2001, he left a balanced budget and a country poised to pay down by 2009 our entire national debt held by the public. those surpluses were squandered,

largely through deficits funding tax cuts tilted to the higher earning americans. any serious reduction plan must include new revenue. i'm pleased to see that the chairman's proposal based on the president's bipartisan fiscal commission would raise $2.4 trillion over ten years through tax reform. a great majority of the american people and a majority of our colleagues here in the senate support a tax system that ensures that those at the very top of the income latter pay at least the tax rate that middle class families pay. no matter how elegant the reform we come up may be, we ought to include this safeguard against future congresses, again inserting loopholes that benefit primarily well connected high income earners. while the chairman's version of the fiscal plan represents a fine starting point for bipartisan negotiations i have deep concerns about the cuts to medicare and medicaid.

as members have heard me say repeatedly, we can substantially lower our health care spending and improve quality by improving the way in which we deliver health care. potential system wide savings estimates have ranged from the $700 billion per year estimate of the president's council of economic advises, to the $1 trillion per year estimate of the lewen group and paul o'neill. the authors of the fiscal commission plan testified before this committee last year and agreed with me on the potential for delivery system reform. mr. bowles said what you were saying is exactly right. but he added it is not, unfortunately, scorable and that is why it is not in our report. senator simpson agreed saying my assessment has, quote, gone to the core of it. we should focus our health care attention on setting cost

containing goals. if we're smart about this problem we can avoid the type of benefit cuts included in the plan before us today. this need not be a partisan issue. senator portman has spoken to it with knowledge and conviction and i look forward to working with all my colleagues on both sides of the table to advance the substantial deficit reduction promised by wise health care system reform. i do reject the system's social security recommendations. while other parts are more balanced. the social security would have an 80% to 20% combination. as we know, the congressional budget act prohibits making changes in the budget resolution and this resolution do not do that. but since the mark follows the recommendations of the fiscal commission, i make this point. particularly with respect to the chained cpi. the current cpi failed to produce cost of living adjustments of 2010 and 2011.

i heard from countless rhode island seniors how stretched their budgets have become. the 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. mr. chairman, i thank you, once again, for your dedication to this committee, for your integrity. and 4 hard work on this budget proposal. 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 deficit neutral reserve fund votes back and forth and a climactic vote-a-rama on the senate floor. that has never been a very salutary process in my experience on this committee.

the alternative is that this committee could become the fulcrum of decision for the important choices our country faces. a crucible for the necessary compromise that will lead us forward. it may be holding out too much hope for this committee to take on that role, but you've placed your bet on that. if you are right, it will be an historic decision. >> i thank the senator. senator graham is recognized for a statement. >> i think if you hold it down, it works better. >> maybe we've run out. >> maybe we have a bad one. >> did we pay the power bill? there we go. thank you. bipartisanship is breaking out already. >> number one, let's pick up with the idea that the chairman is not the problem. the chairman has tried to be the solution in many different venues. the gang of six. several members are on the

committee here. you tried to sit down in a bipartisan fashion to find a comprehensive solution on the revenue spending side. so clearly your heart is in the right place. i'm sure that was a tough political exercise. but institutionally we'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 about 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 obligation, so i reject the notion that this new process 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 even exist?

i don't remember voting on that. i don't remember having input. it was done by a handful of people somewhere they met. i don't even know what they talked b it would destroy this committee if we buy the idea that 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 sensewise for the role of this 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 has had that feeling 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. so here's what's so disappointing to me. this great election that we just had, the voice of the people did not resonate very long up here. so we're going to have a new election. 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 under the requirements of the law. we're going to put our vision of how to balance the budget on the table. we will work with our democratic colleagues. we're going to produce a document because you have to do that at home. very few businesses are able to survive very long if they don't have a budget or vision for their business. 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 come on this committee, i know you have to be very disappointed. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the senator. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. thank you for the opportunities to talk about my views on budget plan that's been presented. i guess people that are watching us here, i want to take a brief moment to explain what we're doing because that's important,

the process here. you've heard me say it before. here we are in the process of talking about a budget while appropriators are already down the hall appropriating the money for the budget. they're already doing the work. so for us to believe that if we sit here the next several weeks or months and debate a budget and then assume that the appropriators will change all the actions they're doing i think is misleading. the second part is the budget, which is so -- process is somewhat unusual to me. as a former mayor, a mayor presents a budget. the assembly votes on it. the mayor has to sign it and agree to it. that's not what happens here. so the people who watch who assume that we do all this budget work and then the president signs it and agrees to it is mistaken. that's not how it happens.

it's appropriation bills that he signs and agrees to. 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 comment on it. we had a chance to debate it. all of the senate members. we did that. some voted for it. some voted against it. the fact is it passed. the president signed it. set some targets, which the appropriators are now working through. that's where we're at. we can rehash all that. we can debate all that. but just as senator graham talked about, i'm not as new as the ten folks, but i'm a new 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.