Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are in the middle of the budget debate and, as the Ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, it is something which is very important to me, and, I believe, to America.

There are two aspects of it. One is, how will we finish this fiscal year that ends September 30? The House Republicans have sent over legislation that funds the government, but it is $61 billion less than was expected or had been projected under last year's budget. I don't think anyone would be surprised, after the last election and the big spenders took a pretty big hit, that there would be a reduction after the continuing resolution of, I guess, 5 months expired. Since that expired a few weeks ago and we have had some short-term continuing resolutions, we have reduced spending by about $10 billion. I truly believe we need to move it on down to a full $61 billion and, over 10 years, that will reduce the baseline by $61 billion and, fairly computed, it will save, over a 10-year timeframe alone, $860 billion. That is close to $1 trillion. It is real money. It is a significant step we should take. I hope this Congress will take it.

The next matter that is before us is, what about next year's budget? We should already be in that cycle. The President has submitted the budget he is required by law to submit to the Congress. It does nothing about the threat to our country economically and financially. It is a great disappointment, the most irresponsible budget ever submitted, I am confident, by any President in the history of the American Republic. I have said that before, and I truly believe it. It is irresponsible. We cannot adopt it, we will not adopt it, and it will not become law. But our Senate has indicated they are prepared to consider--Democrats, too--a better budget, perhaps, but we haven't seen it. It has not been brought forth to the Budget Committee, as the law requires us to do, so far, and we are behind schedule. But the House tomorrow will consider a historic budget that honestly and carefully confronts the challenges facing us, long term and short term, dealing with entitlements, without gimmicks, and allows us to begin to focus on what the challenges are and why we have to take these steps.

Because who wants to talk about cutting spending? What politician likes to do that? It is not something we like to do. Why are we talking about this? Why? Can't it be put off? Is it just political squabbling between Republicans and Democrats? They are always bickering. Is this what it is all about? Is there anything real here? Do we have a problem that can't be avoided? Is it something--can't we just continue like we are? Why do we have to worry about more reductions in spending?

That is the question: Do we have a real crisis? Are we facing a threat to our economic well-being that could throw this country into another recession, maybe even a depression--surely, hopefully, not--a fiscal, financial crisis; is that possible?

Let's talk about a couple things. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently stated that our national debt is the greatest threat to our national security. That is a pretty strong statement. Secretary of State Clinton said something very similar. Is that true? The American people pretty clearly agree with Admiral Mullen by a huge margin. They say we are on the wrong track. You are mismanaging Washington. There was a shellacking of the big spenders in the last election. People know we are spending too much money. We have had a 24-percent increase in spending since President Obama has been President--a 24-percent increase in discretionary nondefense spending. Inflation has been 1 or 2 percent during this time, and we had a 24- percent increase.

Next year's budget by the President calls for an 11-percent increase in education, a 10.5-percent increase in the State Department, a 9.5- percent increase in the Energy Department, and a 61-percent increase in transportation and high-speed rail. What? The inflation rate is 2 percent and we have 5 times--or 50 times, nearly, that amount in spending increases?

Alarmingly, it is not just the American people or just the tea party, great American people who are concerned about their country. It is not just tea party members who are expressing concern and calling for action. It is the Nation's top financial experts. This is what is important. They are calling for action sooner rather than later.

Erskine Bowles, President Obama's choice to head the deficit commission, who was also President Clinton's Chief of Staff and is a very successful businessman himself--he was chosen by President Obama to head the debt commission, along with Alan Simpson, a former Republican Senator. In a written statement they submitted to the Budget Committee just 2 weeks ago, this is what they said. This is a formal written statement from the debt commission cochairman to the Budget Committee of the Senate:

This is the most predictable financial crisis this Nation

has ever faced.

Predictable crisis. In other words, we can see it coming. They spent months doing research. They heard from all kinds of witnesses. When asked when the crisis might occur, which could involve some sort of double-dip recession or even a longer recession or higher unemployment, Mr. Bowles said it could be 2 years, maybe sooner, maybe later. Alan Simpson said it could be within a year. These are stark warnings, and the same message is coming from a host of the world's top financial experts.

I have to say the good news is our country has a strong work ethic and an entrepreneurial spirit still exists. The indications are that despite the economic drag and our huge debt burden, the economy--far slower than normal recovering from this recession--is

struggling to rebound. If we act decisively now to end our wasteful spending habits, we can be confident that progress in growth will continue.

When our Nation's leaders are aware that their country is facing a crisis, they have no higher moral responsibility than to act to protect the Nation from that danger. Today's Wall Street Journal has an op-ed by the Nobel Prize laureate, Gary Becker; a former Secretary of the Treasury, George Shultz; and an economic professor, John Taylor. The article embraces the $61 billion in reduced spending passed by the House and debunks the critics unequivocally who call these cuts extreme. They directly and categorically rebut the assertion that these spending reductions will result in higher job losses and explain why that is a false view.

Again, is the debate over spending just another Republican and Democratic squabble? Is it just an attempt to gain political advantage? Sound and fury signifying nothing?

The answer is a resounding no. We are spending money we don't have in amounts dramatically greater than at any time in our history. When this fiscal year ends September 30, we will have spent $3.7 trillion and taken in only $2.2 trillion. Forty cents of every dollar we spend this year will be borrowed. We have to borrow the money we don't have. This will be the largest of three consecutive deficits exceeding $1 trillion.

President Bush was rightly condemned for his $450 billion deficit 1 year--the highest he ever had. We have been over $1 trillion in the last 3 years. Next year's budget deficit is expected to exceed $1 trillion.

This money must be borrowed and interest paid. Nothing comes from nothing. Last year, the Nation's total interest payment was $200 billion. That is how much we paid on the money we borrowed. For perspective, the Federal highway program--and Senator Inhofe knows about this--is about $40 billion, and we spent $200 billion on the interest. We would like to have spent more on highways. Federal education programs cost about $70 billion. So already the interest on our debt is the fastest growing expense of our government, and it is crowding out spending for other programs.

But hold your hat. Our current trajectory takes us at increasing speed on a ``road,'' as the former head of the European Union said, ``to financial hell.'' He said that about the United States.

According to the official score or analysis of the President's 10- year budget, the total debt of America will more than double, from $13 trillion to $27 trillion, over the 10-year period, and our annual interest will increase from $200 billion last year to $940 billion. That is how much interest we will be paying the tenth year under the budget. It will cost more than education, highways, energy, and the State Department combined.

Indeed, our interest payment will surge past defense, Medicare, and Medicaid. That is why expert after expert, witness after witness, Republicans and Democrats, say the United States is on an ``unsustainable path.'' Yet President Obama's budget increases all spending every year, including discretionary spending, doubling the debt of the United States again, all the while raising taxes by almost $2 trillion. He makes no proposals to put Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security on sound footing--nothing. It creates a debt path where his lowest annual deficit in 10 years is $748 billion--that is the best year--with his outyear deficits increasing, so that by the tenth year his budget is scored as having a deficit of $1.2 trillion. Is that unsustainable or not?

Is it extreme to say we have to change that course, that we can't continue it? Well, let me quote a few experts--not just Jeff Sessions, the Senator from Alabama. How about some people whose lives have been enmeshed in the debt of America? They seem to share the concerns, it seems to me, of the ``extremists''--the tea party people. What do the experts say? How about Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve? This is what he said:

I think that the type of budget agreement that was put

together by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles is the type of

budget that will be passed by Congress.

It doesn't look like that is so, unfortunately. He goes on to say:

The only question is, will it be before or after the bond

market crisis?

Is Alan Greenspan an extremist? He said, also, a few weeks ago that we could have a debt crisis in our country in 2 to 3 years.

Bill Gross, who heads the world's largest bond fund at Pacific Management, eliminated government-related debt from his flagship fund. They no longer have any U.S. Treasury bonds. This is what he wrote recently:

If the USA were a corporation, then it would probably have

a negative net worth of $35-$40 trillion once our ``assets''

were properly accounted for. . . . No lender would lend to

such a corporation.

Is Bill Gross extreme?

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson said:

We believe that if we do not take decisive action, our

Nation faces the most predictable economic crisis in its

history.

Mr. Bowles, before the Budget Committee, March 8, was asked how and when that might happen by Senator Conrad, our chairman. He said:

The problem is going to happen. It is a problem we are

going to have to face up to in maybe 2 years, maybe a little

less, maybe a little more.

Simpson said this:

I think it [the crisis] could come before 2 years.

Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, when asked about the Reinhart-Rogoff study--which said when debt reaches 90 percent of GDP, the economy of a nation slows down noticeably--and I believe Rogoff and Reinhart will be testifying before the committee tomorrow. When asked about their analysis, that 90 percent--your debt equals 90 percent of your gross domestic product, your economy is slowed and it pulls down; and we are already at 95 percent, heading to 100 percent by September 30--Mr. Geithner said it was an excellent study. He didn't say this is an extreme study. He said this:

In some ways . . . it understates the risks, because it is

not just that countries that live with very high debt-to-GDP

ratios are consigned to weaker growth; they are consigned to

the damage that comes from periodic financial crises as well.

Is Secretary Geithner extreme? Is Admiral Mullen extreme? Senator Conrad, our chairman, is very concerned about the trajectory we are on. On March 15, at a Budget Committee hearing, this is what he said:

I believe our Nation is in peril. We are hurtling toward a

fiscal cliff. . . . We are clearly on an unsustainable

course.

Pete Domenici, who was part of the Rivlin-Domenici debt commission, which was similar to Bowles-Simpson, and was also the former chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate, said this:

I have never been more worried for my country.

Are Senator Conrad and Senator Domenici extreme? I think not.

Only three bodies can propose spending plans. The White House budget has been submitted. It would double our debt, surge our interest burden, increase spending at every level, and raise taxes substantially. Tomorrow we will have the House plan. It will be released by Budget Chairman Ryan. It is the most serious attempt ever made to solve America's spending and debt problems while saving critical programs, such as Medicare--saving those programs. They are beginning to default now.

What does the Senate plan to do, the Democratic Senate? Doing nothing seems to be the plan. We have not seen a budget proposal and haven't had a hearing set for the markup of a budget proposal. I doubt that the President's plan will be brought forward in its present form because it would receive not many Democratic votes and, I suspect, no Republican votes. I don't know.

The Senate has to do something. We have to propose a budget and be engaged in the process. We can't stick our heads in the sand. We cannot be in denial. Is the President going to change? Is he going to all of a sudden take responsibility for the fact that we may be heading to a fiscal crisis that could surge unemployment, surge interest rates, and place this Nation in financial risk? We have not seen it yet.

If he does not act, what will our Senate Democratic colleagues do? I call on them to step up and represent their constituents, to do the right thing. We have to do the right thing. We cannot continue on this course.

In my view, American leaders have no higher duty, no greater moral responsibility than to take all the appropriate steps to protect the good people we serve from a clear and present danger--a danger that has been detailed to us with clarity and repetition by some of America's finest leaders.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have a couple of things to say this morning. First, and briefly, I want to, and probably will, support the military action in Libya. I have been inclined to think that careful, surgical use of our forces can make a positive difference to the degree it would be worth the risk of that involvement. But I am not really sure of that.

As a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, these are matters with which I am not totally unfamiliar. I was very confident from the beginning that we could execute a no-fly zone very effectively, and that--there is risk but not great risk because of our military capabilities. However, I do believe that over a number of years the Congress and the American people have expressed grave concerns over the executive branch committing the United States to military actions without full participation of the legislative branch. We have not used the declaration of war mechanism, truthfully, as the defining act for most of our military actions in recent years. We have used authorization of military force resolutions that authorized the President to utilize the military force.

We spent weeks doing that before the Iraq invasion--not weeks, months. In fact, as I recall, the authorization for utilization of military force in Iraq was passed in the fall, I believe October, and the actual invasion did not occur until the next spring, in March.

During that time, we had many hearings. We had full debate. There was resolution after resolution in the U.N, but Congress was fully on top of all of it. They knew what was at stake, and we voted. Some voted no and complained and continued to complain. But for the most part, those who voted no supported the action because we had been involved in a discussion that was real about the risk and so forth.

Then we had other actions, such as Grenada and Panama, that had less debate by Congress. People have not been happy about that. They believed there should have been more. In my opinion, the consultative process for this military engagement was unacceptable. It did not have to occur in this fashion. There was ample opportunity to discuss it.

Senator Susan Collins, on the Armed Services Committee, a few days ago, we had top Defense Department officials there. Admiral Stavridis, who is the commander of NATO forces, was testifying. She said: Well, we had time, it appears, to consult and get a vote in the U.N. We had time to consult and get a vote in NATO. The Arab League apparently found time to reach some sort of consensus, but we did not have time to involve the Congress.

Well, that struck me as a very legitimate and serious statement. I think Senator Collins was correct. There was ample opportunity to consult Congress. This was a war, to use a phrase in recent years, of choice. It was not a military action that was demanded because we had been attacked on our soil or in our legitimate bases somewhere around the world and we had to defend ourselves immediately.

So I am not happy about it. I think it is a big mess. I think Democrats and Republicans have the same unease about it, and I believe it is time for Congress to assert itself more effectively.

We had a briefing last night, 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock. It went 50 minutes. Frankly, I did not get a lot out of it. I heard little that I had not picked up from the cable news networks. We turned on the television this morning, and we saw news about the CIA involvement there, for good or ill. I did not hear that discussed at our briefing. It would have been nice to have heard it straight from the administration's leaders, rather than seeing it on television the next morning. So this is the kind of situation we are in. It is not acceptable. Congress must assert itself.

Based on what President Obama said back during the campaign about our reluctance to initiate military force, it is sort of surprising that we have not had more consultation.

Maybe it is an institutional tendency. Once you become President, you don't want to fool with Congress. They ask troublesome questions. They slow things down, maybe, although in this instance I think we had a lot quicker response from Congress than we got from the administration. Regardless, I think we are in front of that issue. It is time for Congress in a bipartisan way to ask itself, first, what do we expect, what is a minimum amount of congressional involvement? Then we need to make sure that every President hence forward complies with at least that.

I am also not happy at the way some resolution was passed here that seemed to have authorized force in some way that nobody I know of in the Senate was aware that it was in the resolution when it passed. I am very concerned about that.

Mr. President, we will have this afternoon a vote in the Budget Committee, of which I am ranking Republican, on the nomination of Heather Higginbottom to be President Obama's deputy budget director

at the Office of Management and Budget. OMB is a very critical part of the administration of any American government. OMB is the agency that controls, on behalf of the President, the lust of all agencies and departments to get more money for their budgets. They send up their requests. OMB is the control point for the President. He cannot sit down and negotiate every single dispute over funding. OMB handles that, controls it. If there is a real loggerhead debate between Cabinet officials and OMB, they can go directly to the President, and the President will decide it. But most times overwhelmingly decisions are made in OMB. It is that institution that is critical to contain the growing spending we have. It is a very important position.

I supported the appointment of Jack Lew for Director. He had been OMB Director under President Clinton. He was said to be the one to get credit for balancing the budget. I do remember that the House Republicans under Newt Gingrich fought over spending for months and years. Actually for a short period of time the government shut down. It looks as though it didn't destroy America. We are still operating. But they fought, and they balanced the budget. So Mr. Lew was there during that period of time. Certainly he deserves some credit. I was pleased to support him. But I was stunningly disappointed when Mr. Lew went on television and said the President's 10-year budget calls on America to live within its means, to not spend more than we take in, when over the 10-year budget, there is not a single year by the President's own budget, submitted by Mr. Lew, in which the deficit fell below $600 billion. And in the outyears the numbers were going up to about $800 billion.

Since Mr. Lew submitted the President's budget, the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan group, analyzed President Obama's budget and said it is far worse than that. The lowest single deficit we will have in 10 years is $748 billion. The highest deficit President Bush ever had was $450 billion.

This is unbelievable. This year the budget deficit is going to be over $1.4 billion. In the tenth year, CBO said Mr. Lew and President Obama's budget would call for a $1.2 trillion deficit, a clearly unsustainable path of surging debt in the outyears going up. That is why Mr. Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, and Erskine Bowles, President Obama's chairman of the deficit commission, both said this is an unsustainable path.

Interest last year on the budget was about $200 billion. We paid out $200 billion to people in China and governments of China, Japan, all over the world and to American citizens who loaned us money so we can spend $3.6 trillion this year while we are only taking in 2.2. We have to borrow that money. We don't have that money. Forty cents of every dollar that is spent is borrowed. We get a budget for next year, blithely calling for education funding to be increased 10 percent, 11 percent, calling for the Energy Department to get a 9.5-percent increase, calling for the State Department to get a 10.5-percent increase, calling for huge increases in the Transportation Department, while inflation is 2 percent or less, and deficits are surging out of control. And what do they say? They say these are investments, but sometimes we don't have money to invest. How can I buy stock if I don't have any money? We don't have money. Reality has to break through.

The fact that the President continues to assert his budget calls on us to live within our means when it sets forth the most irresponsible surge of debt the Nation has ever seen is breathtaking. I am disappointed that Mr. Lew has mouthed the same phrases. He has said the same things.

Mr. Erskine Bowles, who cochaired the commission President Obama appointed, he and Alan Simpson a few days ago issued a statement when they testified before the Budget Committee. They said this country is facing the most predictable economic crisis in its history. When asked by Senator Conrad, our chairman, about that, he said it could be 2 years, Mr. Bowles, maybe a little less, maybe a little more, we will have a crisis. Alan Simpson, cochairman of the commission, popped in and said he thinks 1 year; by the end of this year we could have a debt crisis. It is time to act and get on the right path and not be in denial as we are at this time.

I asked Ms. Higginbottom about some of these issues when she was before the committee to try to determine whether she understood the gravity of the situation which we are now in. I was not satisfied.

First, Ms. Higginbottom's experience level is stunningly lacking. She was a former campaign adviser to President Obama, has had no formal budget training or experience, not even a college class in economics. She said: I am not an accountant. No, she is not. She has never served on the Budget Committee. She never studied business, never ran a business, never was a mayor of a town, a county commissioner who had to balance a budget or served in a Governor's office in any way, shape, or form. She has campaigned for Senator Kerry. The highest job she has had was legislative director, not the Chief of Staff who manages the staff, but the legislative director for Senator Kerry who testified for her.

She is a fine person. I think she seems in every way to be a decent person and would be a good legislative director in the Senate. But to be the person who looks a Cabinet official in the eye and says: Secretary Smith, you are asking for X billion dollars and we don't have it. OMB says you don't get it. Who can talk to the American people and tell them we are in a fiscal crisis that could lead to a debt crisis to put us in another recession, a double dip? I don't think she has any comprehension of that. How could she? This is not her experience. She has been a political operative, a legislative operative. When pressed about it, she basically said: The President's budget is a policy document.

At this point in history, OMB needs to be thinking about dollars and cents, needs to be thinking about debt. This idea that we can spend and invest regardless of the financial consequences that will inevitably accrue is false. We need to be listening to someone like Erskine Bowles. We need someone like Erskine Bowles in charge of the OMB. When the President announced his budget, that very day, Mr. Bowles said it came nowhere close to doing what is necessary to get this country on the right track, nowhere close. We need somebody of seriousness who understands the threat this country is facing.

They say you have objected to her because she is young. I have never mentioned the word ``young.'' But she is young. But the most important thing is, she does not have the kind of experience in business or accounting or budgeting or responsibility for management that one would look for in the second in command of the OMB, the most central unit in our entire governmental structure committed to containing wasteful spending. We need somebody who will go after waste, fraud, and abuse.

Being a former Federal prosecutor, a little experience in going after criminals who are trying to steal from us wouldn't hurt. It would be of some value. But she doesn't have that.

Despite the fact that she is a person of character and a good personality and is liked, she is not the right nominee, and, in my view, the nomination should not go forward, and I object to it.

I know in the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, where she also had a hearing, Senator Scott Brown asked her a number of questions.

He asked:

You'll be No. 2. And if Director Lew is not there, you will

be No. 1, potentially. In that respect, I would presume you

would be dealing with accounting and budgeting, obviously,

problems within OMB. Is that a fair statement?

Higginbottom: Sure, uh-huh.

Brown: So I guess my original question is, what type of

budgeting and accounting experience do you have?

Higginbottom: I have done a lot of policymaking.

Senator Brown: All right. I understand that. But I guess

I'm asking, do you have any accounting or budgetary

experience aside from dealing in policy matters?

Higginbottom: I am not an accountant, but the President's

budget is an articulation of his policy agenda.

I think that fails to evidence an understanding of the difficult role the OMB has.

My staff director for the minority in the Senate Budget Committee served in OMB for a while--such a wonderful person. One reason he came to my attention was because a member of President Bush's administration, whom I know well, said he had to go to him and try to ask him to approve additional funding for a department or agency, and he said he could say no, and he would do it in a way that he showed he understood what we were talking about but he would not give in, and he made you respect him for it.

Well, that is kind of the nature of the OMB. All these agencies and departments want to ask for more money for their departments--they can do all these good things--and somebody has to say: This is putting us over the limit. This is putting us over our budget. We do not have this kind of money.

I hope we can get the kind of serious leadership in that office that does not seem to be present today by virtue of the language that indicates that our OMB believes we have a good budget that lives within our means. Both Director Lew and President Obama have repeatedly said the President's budget allows us to live within our means, ``spend money that we have each year'' and ``begin paying down our debt.''

Five or six fact check organizations that analyze statements to see if they are accurate have found these statements to be false. And they are plainly, utterly false. The lowest deficit we are going to have, under the President's Budget, according to the CBO, is $748 billion in the next 10 years. The lowest annual deficit. And our interest payment will increase from $200 billion this year to over $900 billion in 2012.

Mr. President, I do not know what time is left on this side. There is no time left? I will wrap up and say it is for those concerns I have expressed that I will not support Heather Higginbottom as OMB Deputy Director, even though she has many fine qualities, as Senator John Kerry set forth in his testimony on her behalf, although he was not able and did not contend that she has experience in budget, accounting, or finance.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, briefly, with regard to the debate over the limitations of CO2, global warming gases, and the Environmental Protection Agency, Congress has never made a decision on this. The way it came out, in my view, is an example of judicial activism and a dangerous end run around popular sovereignty in America.

Forty years ago, Congress passed the Clean Air Act. That act was designed to deal with particulates and mercury and NOX and SOX--things determined to be pollutants. There was no thought at that time that carbon, or CO2, was a warming gas that would create global warming. It was before the global warming discussion really ever was generated.

Congress had no intention whatsoever to say that carbon dioxide, which is a plant food, which is not harmless to human beings and had never been classified as a pollutant, would be placed under the total control of the Environmental Protection Agency. But later an activist Supreme Court--5-to-4--seemed to say, but not with perfect clarity, that because now we know or we think some say that CO2 is a global warming gas that could cause global warming, the EPA must regulate what really is a plant food and had never been considered to be a pollutant.

I think Congress needs to act. I think Congress needs to assume responsibility. We need to say: No, we are not prepared to direct that the Environmental Protection Agency control all CO2 emissions in the country. We never intended that. We are not prepared to do that. If we want to start down that road, we in Congress will figure out how we should start down that road and how much ought to be done. But no group of bureaucrats should be empowered to regulate every farm, every apartment building, every schoolhouse, every automobile, every vehicle, every train, much less every electric-generating plant in the country.

It is a big deal about reality and power in America. It is just one more example of how judges and bureaucrats are utilizing powers really never intended to be given to them. Really, they sort of create that to impose their agenda on the rest of the country. I believe we should back away from that. That is why I support Senator Inhofe in his view.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to share some thoughts this morning and to report to our colleagues on the analysis done by the Congressional Budget Office of the President's budget he has submitted to us and asked that we adopt.

The budget has been roundly criticized as in no way getting us off this unsustainable path, and allowing the country to continue to head toward a financial abyss. Expert after expert, witness after witness before the Budget Committee--on which I am the ranking Republican Member--has testified to the danger we face and the need for us to take action. The Congressional Budget Office, in sum, concludes that the very insufficient reforms contained in the President's budget are more insufficient than the President has said, when properly analyzed. It is a very firm and severe rebuke to the President and his team of analysts who presented it to us. It is not good.

I believe it is probably the most erroneous budget ever submitted to Congress, in changing the numbers by $2.3 trillion in debt. In other words, the Congressional Budget Office says the budget submitted by the President, which was supposed to add to the debt some $13 trillion or so, is actually going to add $2 trillion more to the debt over 10 years, more than doubling the national debt. This is a very serious matter.

The budget presentation to the Congress continues a policy by this administration to minimize the danger of the debt crisis we face. It has been a sophisticated, long-term, continuous effort to not only say that cuts are too severe, too extreme--as the talking points go--and that, indeed, this President has things under control; that the debt crisis is not real, and we don't have to take firm action. The President does not look people in the eye and explain the true situation we are facing.

Indeed, this is the rhetoric they have used. The President has used this language; Jack Lew, his Director of the Office of Management and Budget, has used this language. They claim the budget they submitted calls on us to ``live within our means.'' His budget causes us to live within our means. They also have used this phrase, more than once: ``It only spends money that we have each year.'' Also they say that their budget ``does not add more to the debt.'' At a press conference about this, the press secretary to the White House was asked: Do you stand by these statements? What did he say? Absolutely. And when Budget Director Lew came before the Budget Committee, and I asked him about it, he stands by these statements. He didn't acknowledge they are in any way in error.

If we are going to have reform in America, if we are going to do something about the debt crisis this Nation faces, we have to be honest with one another. We have to deal honestly with the grave challenges we face. We can't be in denial. We can't continue to say we are living within our means and that we are not going to add more to our debt.

Why do I say that? Well, the President's own budget said the deficits would surge, would continue to be out there every single year, with the lowest single deficit in 10 years, according to his budget, to be $600 billion and going up in the outyears to almost $800 billion.

What does CBO say about all of this? This is what they told us after they analyzed the President's budget. Let me explain what happens. The President submits a budget to the Congress. We have our own Congressional Budget Office, and they analyze what the President proposes. They then give us a report on it and say what it means, if adopted; how it would impact our economy, how it would impact our debt, how it would impact the financing of our government. So what does CBO say? It says the President's debt-doubling budget adds more to the debt than the President claims. The score reveals the President's budget never once produces a deficit of less than $748 billion, and climbs to a deficit in the tenth year of $1.2 trillion--one thousand two hundred billion dollars.

I have been saying the lowest budget was $600 billion because that is what the President's own numbers said in the document he sent to us, but CBO says no. The CBO Director and his team, for the most part, were in place when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. They are a nonpartisan group that tries to give honest numbers and do honest work. They are certainly not a Republican organization. They say the actual number was not going to be a $600 billion low annual deficit but that the lowest deficit would be $748 billion, increasing to $1.2 trillion.

You see, this is why the experts say we are on an unsustainable path. We cannot continue. How much is $1.2 trillion? Well, the highest deficit President Bush ever had was $450 billion, I believe, give or take. That was way too high, and he was roundly criticized for that. But this is three times that in the tenth year. This year, we are going to have a $1.6 trillion, $1.5 trillion deficit. In this fiscal year we will have, for the third consecutive time, a trillion dollar deficit. These are deficits the likes of which the Nation has never seen before and cannot sustain. It puts us on a path to financial instability and danger. It is a path we must get off. We can do so, but it is going to take some will. We are going to have to do some of the same things our cities and counties are doing.

Also, the CBO said that, using gimmicks, the President's budget concealed a total of $2.3 trillion in deficit spending and $1.7 trillion in increases of gross debt for the country. The debt to GDP reaches 116 percent in the 10th year.

Let's talk about that. Why is that important? Professors Rogoff and Reinhart, who testified before our committee, have written a very significant and highly regarded book. Their book, ``This Time It's Different,'' says that from a study of sovereign nations all over the world, when their debt reaches 100 percent of GDP, the economy is pulled down. It has a depressing effect on their economy. The economy will grow on average about 1 percent less than it would have grown otherwise, which is huge.

When you are talking about economic growth of 2, 3, 4 percent, to have a 1-percent reduction is a major drain on our economic growth, and growth is so critical for job creation and actually tax revenue to fund our government and get us out of the debt we are in. You cannot borrow your way out of debt. The deeper you get into debt, the more it pulls down the vitality and growth potential of your economy. We have to get off this path.

CBO says in the 10th year it will be 116. Senator Conrad, the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee, is very worried about this number. He

had a chart about it at our hearing recently. He showed that this year for the first time we will go over 100 percent of GDP in national debt. It is about 5 percent now, and we will go over 100 percent and will stay over it under the President's budget. Experts tell me this is unsustainable. Something bad will happen to us.

In addition, when Secretary of Treasury Geithner appeared before our committee, he acknowledged the Rogoff and Reinhart analysis. He acknowledged that this high level of debt will weaken the growth in our economy, and he added this: This level of debt creates a greater potential for an economic kickback, an economic catastrophe; another recession could occur as a result of these high debts.

CBO analysis reveals a number of other things that are disturbing because they are so plainly false, so plainly gimmicky, and so plainly designed to mislead the American people about the true nature of this budget that it, again, raises credibility questions about the White House and how they are explaining the situation we are in to the American people. They seem to be denying we are in a crisis.

For example, this budget submitted by the White House assumes there will be $315 billion for what we refer to as the doc fix in the final 8 years of this 10-year budget. But there is no source of income for that. They do not propose a tax increase. They do not propose any income that would be there. The CBO says: You cannot just assume money is going to appear when there is no source for this money. It is a manipulation of the numbers to try to hide the fact that there are no moneys available to pay the doctors the kind of income they need to continue to treat Medicare patients. If we do not do something, physicians will have their pay cut 20-percent-plus for treating Medicare patients. That is not healthy. It cannot be sustained. Physicians will not work with another 20 percent cut. They get paid less for Medicare than any other source of work they do unless it is the Federal Medicaid Program. CBO called them on it and said: No, you cannot score income when you show no source of that income.

What about transportation? There is a major increase proposed for spending on transportation next year, and their budget just assumes there will be a $328 billion income surge for transportation. It is called a transportation tax, but we are told it will not be a gas tax. I have referred to it as the ``not-gas-tax tax'' because all we know about this tax is they say it will not be a gas tax. They are talking about a $328 billion tax increase of some kind but no proposal where it would be, how it would be imposed, whether Congress would ever vote for it or not. They are not likely to vote for it, I have to tell you. CBO says that is phantom money. You need a better plan than that because otherwise your budget is just smoke and mirrors on that subject.

Remember, when we borrow money, we pay interest. The interest we paid last year was $200 billion. As the debt goes up and increases, although interest rates are very low now, they are going to increase some. According to CBO's analysis, with the debt more than doubling in the next 10 years under the budget the President has submitted to us, the annual interest is over $900 billion. That is about one-fourth of what the entire government spends today. We spend about $3.8 trillion. This is almost $1 trillion in interest in 1 year. Frankly, I think CBO's estimate of what the interest rates are going to be on our debt are probably low.

It is this kind of debt, where your debt is over 100 percent GDP, that puts you in a position where you could have a debt crisis kicking us back into another recession.

What we have to have--from the President and from our Democratic leadership here in the Senate--is an honest evaluation of where we are. The President needs to look the American people in the eye and say: We are not on a course that we can sustain. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke told us in January that we are on an unsustainable path. We have to get off it. About these numbers that project out here for 10 years, the doubling of the debt, Mr. Bernanke said: We are not going to get there because we will have a debt crisis before we get there, and there will be much, much harder times getting our finances in order than if we act today to get them in order. He said we wouldn't get there with these projections; they are too severe, too damaging to our economy.

Madam President, what time is left on this side?

If some of my colleagues appear, I will be glad to yield the floor, but I will share a few more thoughts.

The President's budget does some other gimmicky things. He claims he has a 5-year freeze on nondefense discretionary spending. He told the American people that in the State of the Union Address. We have looked at those numbers, and it appears pretty clear that there is a 5-percent increase in the discretionary spending next year. How do they accomplish that? They reclassify all discretionary transportation funding as mandatory spending and say it is not discretionary. They just declare it is mandatory spending, and they say they have reduced discretionary spending by $7 billion. What kind of hokum is that? This is not worthy of the President of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget, coming here with a gimmick like that--just redefine discretionary spending and say it is there and say: I have a freeze in discretionary spending.

What else did they do? They hide another $9 billion in the reverse of that, in one-time mandatory savings. Actually, they use it in the discretionary account, but they do not count it as increased spending. That is $9 billion. And the President's proposed spending levels for next year will be even further out of whack as a freeze because this Congress is going to reduce the spending this year, hopefully by the full $61 billion the House has asked that we reduce it.

You say: Mr. Sessions, this is all partisan bickering. But it is not partisan bickering. We have bipartisan recognition in this Senate from Senator after Senator, Democrats as well as Republicans, who understand we are on an unsustainable course, and they know we need to get off this course. But I have to be critical about the President because he is not telling the American people the severity of the challenge we have and he is not proposing a plan that will actually fix it, but actually he is proposing a plan that will make it worse. This is a crisis. We have to confront this problem.

The President is going to have to move from denial to reality, to the real world, and help us develop a plan that contains spending in America just like is happening all over this country. Governor Cuomo is talking about substantial reductions in spending in New York, as is Governor Christie in New Jersey and Governor Brown in California.

I just saw my friend John McMillan, the head of agriculture and industry in the State of Alabama. He has 200 employees. He said they are going to have to reduce 60. That is almost one-third of the employees of his department. Do you think the department of agriculture and the industries of Alabama will cease to exist? I don't think so. I bet Mr. McMillan will figure out some way to perform most of the duties in his office. But he doesn't have the money, and when you don't have the money, you have to make tough decisions.

The American people understand this. When they don't have money, they don't spend. If they spend when they don't have money, they know they are taking a risk and they know it can't continue long. But this Congress does not get it. We are in a denial mode. We think we can just continue to spend forever, and we have the majority leader in the Senate whining about losing money for a cowboy poetry festival in Nevada. Give me a break. When you don't have money, you have to make decisions. That is just the plain fact.

What about next year's budget that the President proposes? The education budget next year is proposed to get an 11-percent increase over the past 2 years, which have had surging increases. Indeed, most Americans probably do not know that in this time of record deficits, over $1 trillion deficits, the last 3 years, the discretionary accounts--nondefense discretionary spending--increased 24 percent. And

next year? They want another 11 percent for education, another 9.5 percent for the Energy Department, another huge increase for transportation--the base, I believe, is over 10 percent but, including the phantom revenue, they will see around a 60 percent increase.

Under the President's request, the State Department is demanding and expecting to get over a 10-percent increase in spending. And inflation is 2 percent or less? How can we do this? The American people know this is not realistic. They know it is dangerous, and they want us to do something about it.

Frankly, I think that had something to do with the elections last fall. I think the American people were sending a message to a blind Congress that they expected us to do better on spending. Are we getting the message? We are proposing huge increases in spending next year, five times the rate of inflation in America, and we claim that is somehow frugal and living within our means. When the lowest single deficit over the next 10 years is projected to be $740-plus billion, that is unacceptable.

We have to be careful about what we say about our economy. We have to keep our economy moving forward. It is struggling. It is moving. We are having some good growth. We want to see that growth continue and expand.

The job situation is not good. We need to have at least 150,000 to 200,000 new jobs a month to stay level. That is about where we have been, 150,000 or 200,000 jobs. That is basically keeping us level. We need more job growth than that. It is better having some jobs being added than none, I acknowledge that, but it is not as strong as we need it to be.

One reason we are not having growth, as Professors Rogoff and Reinhart have told us, is the debt pulling down our economy. It is putting a cloud over our economy. The whole world is watching the United States. Are we going to go off the cliff or will this Congress rise up and put us on a path to sound fiscal policy that creates confidence in our financial situation; creates investment, growth, and jobs. That is the road we need to be on. It will be a tougher road. We will have to make some hard decisions about spending and which programs are going to get money and which ones aren't. Maybe all of them will have to take some sort of cut, but we can do that. We will get the country on the right track, and America is not going to fall into the ocean if we make some reductions in spending.

I will just point out that it is difficult to do that when we are in a political world, according to the New York Times, where anybody who proposes to reduce spending is called an extremist. Senator Schumer started that. He got caught on a phone call saying we should use the word ``extremist.'' Cut $61 billion out of $3,800 billion in expenditures; that is what the House has sent over here to us, a proposal that we reduce spending, under the continuing resolution, by September 30, by $61 billion out of a total of $3,800 billion the Federal Government spends.

This is extreme, we are told, and the government is going to sink into the ocean, and we cannot survive with these kind of reductions. So they had a meeting. They all were right on message, according to the New York Times. ``We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,'' said Mrs. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny funding for Planned Parenthood.

Another Senator said, referring to the House Republicans as ``right wing extremist friends''--he is a real nice Senator. He did not want to be too harsh, so he called them ``right wing extremist friends.'' That is better than not calling them friends, I suppose.

Another Senator decried Mr. Boehner as ``giving in to the extremes of his party.'' Another closed by speaking of the ``relatively small group of ideologues who are an anchor dragging down the budget-negotiating process.''

Give me a break. $61 billion. If we cannot do that, what does the world think about us? Did we really get a message from this election? Did we really understand that we are challenged now; that this is our time in history to face up to the facts that we are on an unsustainable fiscal course that will lead us, as Mr. Bernanke said, to economic disaster long before these projections come to a conclusion?

We cannot continue on this course. We have to get off this course. We owe it to every working American not to put this country back into another recession. The truth is, we can do these reductions in spending. This government is not going to sink into the ocean. We are going to continue to serve the American people. If we do it, we will get on the right path, and this economy can continue to grow knowing that we have gotten our fiscal house in order.

It is not that hard. I urge my colleagues to do so. Let's not give up on the $61 billion total reduction in spending the House has asked us to meet. Let's do it, and let's be proud of it. Let's know then that we have done something that will amount to a real change in the debt trajectory we are on.

We have calculated it. My budget staff has looked at the numbers. A $61 billion reduction in baseline spending--which is what they are proposing--over 10 years will save $860 billion. It will reduce the debt of America by almost $1 trillion. We need to do more of those kinds of things in the months ahead. If we do so, we can change the trajectory we are on.

So I urge my colleagues, do not leave here talking about splitting the baby and just seeing how little we can reduce spending. Let's go on and accept the House number. Let's embrace it. Let's make a decision to get our finances in order just like cities and counties and families are doing all over the country.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate today the noble service of a great American from the State of Alabama. It is with sadness that I speak about Willie Jones, the director of the Cleveland Avenue YMCA, who passed away suddenly last week in Montgomery, AL. Willie was 55 years of age.

Willie was a true leader in the Montgomery community. As a teenager, he began working with the Cleveland Avenue YMCA as an aquatic instructor. He worked his way up to senior vice-president of the organization in Montgomery. Make no mistake, the Montgomery YMCA is one of the greatest ``Y's'' in the country and has been for many years.

He served on the Montgomery Housing Authority Board of Directors and the Montgomery County Recreation Commission. He was a man of deep religious faith, being active with the Mount Zion African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. This faith, I believe, was the key factor in his positive outlook on life and his love for his fellow man.

Willie Jones loved people and they loved him. His constant motive was to help others and the primary vehicle for his life of service was the ``Y.'' Few people were better known in Montgomery--from the poor young person needing a chance to the city's top executives and political leaders. They all knew him, admired him, and loved him.

For more than 40 years, Willie devoted his life to public service, leaving a positive imprint on the lives of countless Alabama youths.

I know how valuable the programs he worked so hard for have been for the young people of Montgomery. Time and time again, lives have been directed on a course to success as a result of the personal relationships and care demonstrated by Willie and his team.

It was a tremendous joy seeing Willie work with kids. He gave them opportunities at the YMCA, instilling in them a sense of hope and the knowledge that they could make a difference, both in their own lives and in the lives of others.

Willie was often quoted as saying ``This isn't about Willie Jones; it's about the kids at the YMCA.'' Indeed he was an inspiration.

I had the great privilege to know Willie personally. He visited my office here in Washington many times over the years. I witnessed Willie in action--he was a man with a giant heart, and it showed on the expressions of folks who would light up when he entered a room.

Willie touched the lives of so many, and he will be sorely missed. Mary and I extend our deepest sympathies to his wife, the Jones family, and to the Montgomery community. He was too young to leave us. There was more to do. But, his life was full and complete. He fulfilled his mission with purity and purpose, in accord with the will of his Lord. His life honored his Maker. Would that we all could live so well. May his life be an example for those of us who continue to serve in public office.

Mr. President, it is appropriate that we take a moment to honor the man who was heard on the airwaves in Montgomery, AL, for decades. A friend and longtime radio host, Don Markwell, passed away last Friday. Don was born in Island, KY, and began his career in radio as a disc jockey for WNES AM in 1956. He and his family moved to Montgomery in the late 1950s. Don created Alabama's very first talk show on WCOV in 1959.

In 1967, Don Markwell began the program he would later become famous for, ``Viewpoint.'' Talk radio was a new concept in the 1960s, and Don had the foresight to see its potential and popularity.

Some people criticize the talk show format and the hosts. But it is an open forum. People could call Don and disagree, but they better be prepared. Listeners knew the drill. They filter the honest and dishonest, the fair and unfair. Indeed, talk radio is the modern day town hall.

I was delighted to be Don's guest on numerous occasions. He never had a problem asking the tough questions--something I very much admired in him and try to emulate. For some years, I took to calling him ``Dean Don,'' dubbing him the dean of talk show hosts. He was that indeed. No one in Alabama and few, if any elsewhere, had such a record--he liked that, I think.

When I first ran for office, attorney general of Alabama in 1994, Don was aware of many problems associated with my incumbent opponent. He brought those issues out, gave me and my record a chance to become known by his Montgomery audience. Don offered my opponent a chance to appear, but he declined. Radio talk shows provide lesser known and lesser funded candidates a chance to be known by the public. I know my talk show appearances, as a little known challenger, helped voters to know about my position on the issues.

Don spent more than half a century working in the radio industry, 30 of those years hosting ``Viewpoint'' and never lacking in enthusiasm and controversy. He was fearless and principled.

His persona was libertarian. He was not happy with Republicans or Democrats. His problem with Republicans was that he expected more of them. He could spot a phony a mile--or 1,000 miles--away. Sometimes he spotted phonies that weren't phonies, but that was not often. June of 2006, Don celebrated 50 years in broadcasting. In 2008, he retired from WACV-AM 1170 and said goodbye to the radio world. When Dan Morris took over Don Markwell's time slot on WACV, Dan kept the name ``Viewpoint'' and has continued Don's tradition of covering local and national issues during drive time.

As anyone in Montgomery, AL, will tell you, Don is a legend and a pioneer in talk radio. His accomplishments and outstanding service to both the broadcasting industry and the public are surely worthy of commendation. And what a voice--rich and deep--it was instantly recognizable.

My thoughts and prayers go out to Nell and the Markwell family in their time of grief. I, like many others, am grateful to have called Don a friend, and he will be dearly missed.

Madam President, government funding is set to expire next week on April 8. We are in the midst of the 2011 fiscal year that ends September 30, and the Congress has only appropriated money through April 8. If Congress does not act by that time, the government would shut down.

Congress needs to act, but Congress needs to listen to the American people and listen to the financial experts whom we have dealt with and reduce spending and reduce the surging deficit we face this year, last predicted to be $1.4 trillion. Nothing has ever been seen like it before, and it has to be addressed. There is no way around it.

So we have this deadline hanging over our heads, and the reason is, my colleagues in the Democratic leadership in the Senate will not agree to the kind of substantial but realistic spending reductions the House of Representatives has sent to us. The House has sent us a budget plan that I think will work. But what we hear is, the sky will fall if we trim the $61 billion from a $3.7 trillion budget--$3,700 billion that we spend--if we reduce that spending by $61 billion, somehow this will cause the country to sink into oblivion.

The American people know better than that. That is not realistic. Of course, we can cut those kinds of numbers out of this huge budget we have, and the American people will be better off for it.

As ranking member on the Budget Committee, I have looked at the numbers, and that $61 billion reduces the baseline of Federal spending by $61 billion this year, but over 10 years--because it is a baseline reduction--it would save $860 billion. This is the kind of small but significant step that does make a difference.

People say: It does not make any difference. Why don't we just increase spending? Why do we cut spending at all? Of course, we have to reduce spending. The American people know the borrowed money and overspending of the past 2 years have failed to produce what it promised. Instead, all that has been achieved through this massive surge in Federal spending, through the stimulus package and other programs, is a crushing debt burden that weakens our economy and is a drag on our economy, as expert witnesses have told us. It threatens our economic future. Alan Simpson, former Republican Senator, and Erskine Bowles, formerly the Chief of Staff to President Clinton, were appointed by President Obama to cochair the debt commission. The fiscal commission reported to us, and jointly they submitted a written statement that said if the United States fails to act, it faces ``the most predictable economic crisis in its history.'' This is a real warning. They said such a crisis could arrive in as soon as 1 or 2 years.

People have been saying: Oh, we are on the wrong track. If we do not get off it, in 3 or 4 or 5 years, we are going to have a crisis. More and more people are warning us that crisis is sooner. Mr. Bowles said: In 1 year, give or take a little bit, we will have a crisis. Mr. Simpson said: I think within 1 year.

The American people rightly expect their elected leaders to confront this threat with seriousness and candor. But the President has never once looked the American people in the eyes and told them the truth about the financial crisis we face. Has he ever discussed those kinds of words with the American people, that we face an actual crisis? We could have a debt problem that hits us very quickly, just like the one in 2008 that put us in a deep recession. We are in a fragile recovery now, and we need to keep that recovery going. The last thing we need to do is have another recession, or some sort of other financial collapse that puts more people out of work and weakens an already struggling economy. It is not necessary this occur.

The President and his Budget Director have, instead of being truthful with us, falsely boasted to the American people that under their budget we will ``live within our means'' and ``not add more to the debt'' and that ``we're not going to spend any more money than we're taking in.'' He submitted his 10-year budget to the Congress, and that is what he says his budget will do. But not one of those statements is true--not one.

When the budget was announced, Mr. Bowles, whom the President appointed to head the debt commission, said it is nowhere close to what we need to be doing to get our house in order. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office finds this: that our annual deficits never once fall below $748 billion. I was saying $600 billion before based on the President's estimates of his budget. Now the Congressional Budget Office has done an independent analysis of the President's budget, and they say the lowest single annual deficit, in 10 years, would be $748 billion.

Is it going down, you ask? Is this budget going to put us living within our means and live on what we take in? In the outyears, the deficits out 7, 8, 9, 10 years of the President's budget, they are going up. In the 10th year, the budget deficit is $1.2 trillion--a $1,200 billion deficit that year.

You might ask: What do those numbers mean? We spend, this year, about $3.7 trillion through September 30. We take in $2.2 trillion. This is why we are on an unsustainable path and we have to get off of it. It is not a partisan matter; it is a matter of facing reality. We still have Members of the Senate in denial. We have the majority leader down here complaining that he might not get money for his cowboy poetry festival in Nevada. Give me a break. This country is headed on the path of great danger and we need to turn around.

Imagine the fate a CEO would face if, in the process of asking for shareholders to buy company stock, he declared, ``We are not adding to the debt,'' while his accountants were telling him the company's debt was on a path to double, as our debt is. The President even nominated a deputy director for OMB, Heather Higginbottom, who has no budget experience and who attempted to defend these claims before the Budget Committee last week. I don't know, maybe they couldn't find anybody with experience who would take the job. The best I can tell, she has never had a single business course or an economics course, never managed any kind of organization on budget, ever. She majored, I think, in political science and campaigned for President Obama and Senator John Kerry.

We need some seriousness here. We in Congress are not stepping up to the plate, frankly. We are not taking the kind of decisive action needed to curb our rising debt. And the majority leader, my good friend, Senator Reid--which is a tough job, I have to tell my colleagues; it is a tough job--but now he is saying the problem is there is a division within the Republican Party. You see, we have these extremists over here, the new Republicans who got elected the last election promising to do something about spending and they are out of touch. They are extremists. There are some good Republicans over here. They have been here a long time, and we know how to get along and cut deals and we are going to take care of this thing. You just have to keep these people under control.

I might remind the leader that every single Republican either voted for the $61 billion in cuts or called for more cuts. There is no division in the Republican Party about the need to have reasonable and significant reductions in the expenditures. There is essentially unanimous Republican agreement that we ought to cut $61 billion or more from this year's discretionary budget. By contrast, the majority leader lost nearly one-fifth of his caucus on his proposal, which was basically to do nothing--reduce spending by $4 billion. Ten Members or more defected. They knew that wasn't enough, even under pressure from the President and from the majority leader. So it is clear where the momentum lies.

I wish to repeat again, though: This is not and cannot be seen as a partisan squabble. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve talked to us a few weeks ago, and he submitted a written statement to the Budget Committee. This is what Mr. Bernanke said. He talked about the Congressional Budget Office debt projections. I have made some reference to those and how dangerous they show our path to be.

This is what Chairman Bernanke said:

The CBO projections, by design, ignore the adverse effects

that such high debt and deficits would likely have on our

economy. But if government debt and deficits were actually to

grow at the pace envisioned in this scenario, the economic

and financial effects would be severe. Diminishing confidence

on the part of investors that deficits will be brought under

control would likely lead to sharply rising interest rates on

government debt and potentially to broader financial turmoil.

Moreover, high rates of government borrowing would both drain

funds away from private capital formation and increase our

foreign indebtedness, with adverse long-run effects on U.S.

output, incomes, and standard of living.

He goes on to say:

It is widely understood that the federal Government is on

an unsustainable fiscal path. Yet, as a nation, we have done

little to address this critical threat to our economy. Doing

nothing will not be an option indefinitely; the longer we

wait to act, the greater the risks and the more wrenching the

inevitable changes to the budget will be. By contrast, the

prompt adoption of a credible program to reduce future

deficits would not only enhance the economic growth and

stability in the long run, but could also yield substantial

near-term benefits in terms of lower long-term interest rates

and increased consumer and business confidence.

This is the head of the Federal Reserve, the man supposedly most knowledgeable about the economy of the United States of America. We are not making this up.

We have a proposal from our Democratic majority in the Senate to do nothing, basically--to do zero, nada--despite this kind of warning.

We are living in a fantasy world if we don't think we can cut $61 billion from this budget. My friend John McMillan, just elected the director of Agriculture and Industries in Alabama, is facing a critical crisis in his department. I saw the headline in the paper. He has 200 employees. He is going to have to lay off 60 of them. Cities and counties are doing this kind of thing all over the country. Do we think the State of Alabama will cease to exist if that happens? It is sad that they have that kind of challenge before them. We don't have to do that much right now, but if we took those kinds of steps--something significant--we could make a bigger difference than a lot of people realize in the debt we are facing.

Governor Cuomo in New York and Governor Christie in New Jersey and Governor Brown in California and others all over the country are making real, significant alterations in the level of spending, while we worry about protecting the cowboy poetry festival in Nevada.

Remember this--people have forgotten this. Since President Obama took office, Congress has increased discretionary spending on our non- defense Federal programs by 24 percent. We didn't have the money for that. We never should have increased spending that much. It was a big error. But we know what they said: Don't worry, we are making investments in the future. But you have to have money to make investments. If you don't have money, how can you make investments? All of this increase was borrowed. We are in huge debt and when we increase spending, we have to borrow the money to increase spending. Every penny is borrowed. We did an $800 billion stimulus package. Every penny was borrowed. We pay $30 billion-plus a year interest on that borrowed money for as long as I am alive and longer, no doubt. There is no plan to pay off that debt. I know people are talking and they are working things out and they said they are going to try to reach a compromise so we don't have to shut down the government, and I certainly hope that is true. But I do not believe we need any tax-and-spend compromise. I will not support that. I don't think the American people will support it, either. They know we spend too much. They know we have ramped up spending $800 billion with the stimulus package, that nondefense discretionary spending has gone up 24 percent in 2 years, and they know we can reduce Federal spending without this country sinking into the ocean. That is what they expect us to do. That is what Governors and mayors are doing, county commissioners are doing, all over my State and all over America.

We have to recognize that Washington is spending too much--not taxing too little. How can we ask Americans to pay more in taxes when Washington is not even willing to cut $61 billion?

I have a proposition for my colleagues who wish to raise taxes before we consider asking the American people to pay another cent in taxes: Why don't we first drain every cent of waste from the Federal bureaucracy? We will never truly dig ourselves out of this crisis and put this Nation on a real path to prosperity unless we bring our spending under control. America's strength is measured not by the size of our government but by the scope of our freedoms and the vigor and vitality of the American people and their willingness to invest and work hard for the future. That is what makes us strong. Endless spending, taxing, and borrowing is a certain path to decline, and we are on that path today, and we must get out of it.

We know the threat. We know what we need to do. The economy is trying

to rebound. So let's take some good steps today. Let's pass this $61 billion reduction in spending this fiscal year. It will amount to about $860 billion over 10 years. It will be a very significant first step. That is what is before us today--not the other issues. We have to decide what we are going to do about funding the government between now and September 30. That is the rest of this fiscal year. Let's take a firm step on that. Let's begin to look at what we are going to do for next year's budget and what we are going to do about our surging entitlement programs that are on an unsustainable course. We can do all of those things and leave our country healthy and vigorous and prosperous for the future. I truly believe that is the kind of thing we need to be doing now.

I am baffled that we don't know why the President is not leading more. He is not talking directly to the American people about why this is important. Is it just a political squabble to be ignored, with the President going to Rio and talking about Libya? Or is it true, as Mr. Bernanke says, we are on an unsustainable path? Or is it true that Mr. Erskine Bowles, the President's own director of the fiscal commission, says that we are facing the most predictable economic crisis in this country's history, and he said it could happen within 2 years? Are we making this up?

The American people get it. They say, What is going on in Washington? You have to get your house in order. That is what this past election was about. People understand we need some action and some leadership, but we are not getting it. I truly believe if we could get together and if we could get a bipartisan effort to look at this $61 billion--we could disagree on how to reduce that spending; maybe the Republicans have this idea and the Democrats have this idea--let's work all of that out. But let's reach an agreement that actually reduces spending by enough to make a difference. Then the world would say, Wow, now the Congress is beginning to take some steps. That was a nice, good, strong first step. Now if they will stay on that path, maybe the United States is going to get on the road to prosperity again and stay out of this dangerous debt crisis area we are in today and get on the right path to prosperity. This country is ready to grow. It is ready to rebound. It just needs a clear signal from Washington, in my opinion.

America's leaders, those of us in this Congress, have no higher duty, no greater moral responsibility, than to take all appropriate steps to protect the good people we serve from the clear and present danger we face.

It is time to get busy about it, Madam President. I believe if we act strongly and with clarity the American people will not only support it but they will be happy with it, and it will make a positive difference for our country.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce and speak in favor of the Finding Fugitive Sex Offenders Act of 2011, which would give administrative subpoena authority to the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service for the investigation of sex offenders who have failed to register as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. The language of the bill is the product of bipartisan negotiations during the last Congress, which was included in a broader child crimes bill last year that passed both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate, but did not become law.

To understand the need for this bill, it is important to understand the history of recent child crimes legislation in Congress. When the Adam Walsh Act, which I cosponsored, was enacted in July 2006 to create a more uniform and enforceable sex offender registry system, over 150,000 convicted sex offenders were believed to be unregistered and missing from the various state sex offender registries. A key component of the Walsh Act, one requested by John Walsh himself, was to give the U.S. Marshals Service primary enforcement authority to locate and arrest unregistered sex offenders who had crossed state lines or had earlier been convicted under federal law. The Walsh Act, however, did not provide the Marshals Service with administrative subpoena authority to perform these investigations, which can span jurisdictions and move quickly. The Finding Fugitive Sex Offenders Act will fix this gap in the law and grant the Marshals Service this long-needed authority.

It is very surprising that this authority does not already exist in light of the hundreds of administrative subpoena authorities that are in place for various federal agencies, including the EPA, the DEA, the FBI, the CFTC, and even the Appalachian Regional Commission. In March 2006, the Congressional Research Service reported that ``[t]here are now over 300 instances where federal agencies have been granted administrative subpoena power in one form or another.'' In reality, that number is even higher. According to the Department of Justice's 2002 Report to Congress on the Use of Administrative Subpoena Authorities by Executive Branch Agencies and Entities, the Office of Legal Policy ``identified approximately 335 existing administrative subpoena authorities held by various executive branch entities under current law.'' Most of these authorities are for civil enforcement or regulatory compliance--matters far less critical and time-sensitive than locating a fugitive sex offender who has intentionally evaded registering his location or place of employment to avoid detection by law enforcement.

There is no reason why the Marshals Service should not have this type of authority. In these fast-moving investigations across state lines, law enforcement simply cannot afford delays, especially on weekends and holidays when U.S. Attorney's Offices are closed and grand jury subpoenas are unavailable. Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand explained the delays and limitations of traditional grand jury subpoenas in fast-moving investigations when she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on another administrative subpoena proposal in June 2004:

Although grand jury subpoenas are a sufficient tool in many

investigations, there are circumstances in which an

administrative subpoena would save precious minutes or hours.

. . . For example, the ability to use an administrative

subpoena will eliminate delays caused by factors such as the

unavailability of an Assistant United States Attorney to

immediately issue a grand jury subpoena, especially in rural

areas; the time it takes to contact an Assistant United

States Attorney in the context of a time-sensitive

investigation; the lack of a grand jury sitting at the moment

the documents are needed (under federal law, the `return

date' for a grand jury subpoena must be on a day the grand

jury is sitting); or the absence of an empaneled grand jury

in the judicial district where the investigation is taking

place, a rare circumstance that would prevent a grand jury

subpoena from being issued at all.

The reality is that sex offenders often fail to register precisely so they can evade detection and move to a new place where they won't face scrutiny. During the hearings and floor debates on the Adam Walsh Act, the Senate heard of the heart-breaking tragedies caused when sex offenders knowingly evaded registration so they could disappear from detection. Senators from Washington and Idaho went to the floor to describe the registry failures and disappearance of Joseph Duncan, who shortly after his release from custody in 2005, absconded from Minnesota

and traveled across the country to Idaho, where he kidnapped Dylan and Shasta Groene from their home in the middle of the night. In the course of the kidnapping, he murdered the children's mother, brother, and the mother's boyfriend by beating them to death with a framing hammer. He then took the children to remote campgrounds across the state line into Montana, where he brutally abused them and later killed Dylan. As one Senator explained during the debate: ``Joseph Duncan was essentially lost by three States. He moved from State to State to avoid capture. No one knew where he was nor even how to look for him.''

A similar tragic story involved the convicted sex offender who killed Florida 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford. John Couey had failed to tell authorities that he was living in a trailer just feet from Jessica's home. In 2005, he kidnapped Jessica from her bedroom and took her to his home where he raped and killed her. Ernie Allen, the President of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, cited Couey in his congressional testimony in support of the Walsh Act, explaining that he ``was not where he was supposed to be and [his] presence was unknown to the police or Jessica's family even though he lived 150 yards down the street from her and had worked construction at her elementary school.''

As the Lunsford and Groene cases demonstrate, some sex offenders evade the registry requirements because they want to offend again. In these cases, time is law enforcement's enemy. According to the Department of Justice's guide for families with missing children, ``the actions of parents and of law enforcement in the first 48 hours are critical to the safe recovery of a missing child.'' The Lunsford case illustrates how vital it is for law enforcement to quickly locate sex offenders during a missing child investigation. John Couey reportedly told law enforcement that he kept young Jessica alive for three days before he smothered her inside a plastic trash bag. In a case like Jessica's, this type of authority literally could mean the difference between life and death.

This legislation has broad support. When I drafted this language last Congress, I shared it with the Marshals Service and lawyers who work in the field of protecting children from exploitation. These professionals were not only supportive, but also very clear about the need for this subpoena authority.

I strongly support this legislation and am thankful to the broad bipartisan group, including Senators Blumenthal, Hatch, Klobuchar, Grassley, Whitehouse, Cornyn, Kyl, Graham, Lee, Collins, Thune, Coburn, Burr and Chambliss, who have agreed to cosponsor this legislation. I hope the full Senate will take up and pass this legislation soon.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce and speak in favor of the Finding Fugitive Sex Offenders Act of 2011, which would give administrative subpoena authority to the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service for the investigation of sex offenders who have failed to register as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. The language of the bill is the product of bipartisan negotiations during the last Congress, which was included in a broader child crimes bill last year that passed both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate, but did not become law.

To understand the need for this bill, it is important to understand the history of recent child crimes legislation in Congress. When the Adam Walsh Act, which I cosponsored, was enacted in July 2006 to create a more uniform and enforceable sex offender registry system, over 150,000 convicted sex offenders were believed to be unregistered and missing from the various state sex offender registries. A key component of the Walsh Act, one requested by John Walsh himself, was to give the U.S. Marshals Service primary enforcement authority to locate and arrest unregistered sex offenders who had crossed state lines or had earlier been convicted under federal law. The Walsh Act, however, did not provide the Marshals Service with administrative subpoena authority to perform these investigations, which can span jurisdictions and move quickly. The Finding Fugitive Sex Offenders Act will fix this gap in the law and grant the Marshals Service this long-needed authority.

It is very surprising that this authority does not already exist in light of the hundreds of administrative subpoena authorities that are in place for various federal agencies, including the EPA, the DEA, the FBI, the CFTC, and even the Appalachian Regional Commission. In March 2006, the Congressional Research Service reported that ``[t]here are now over 300 instances where federal agencies have been granted administrative subpoena power in one form or another.'' In reality, that number is even higher. According to the Department of Justice's 2002 Report to Congress on the Use of Administrative Subpoena Authorities by Executive Branch Agencies and Entities, the Office of Legal Policy ``identified approximately 335 existing administrative subpoena authorities held by various executive branch entities under current law.'' Most of these authorities are for civil enforcement or regulatory compliance--matters far less critical and time-sensitive than locating a fugitive sex offender who has intentionally evaded registering his location or place of employment to avoid detection by law enforcement.

There is no reason why the Marshals Service should not have this type of authority. In these fast-moving investigations across state lines, law enforcement simply cannot afford delays, especially on weekends and holidays when U.S. Attorney's Offices are closed and grand jury subpoenas are unavailable. Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand explained the delays and limitations of traditional grand jury subpoenas in fast-moving investigations when she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on another administrative subpoena proposal in June 2004:

Although grand jury subpoenas are a sufficient tool in many

investigations, there are circumstances in which an

administrative subpoena would save precious minutes or hours.

. . . For example, the ability to use an administrative

subpoena will eliminate delays caused by factors such as the

unavailability of an Assistant United States Attorney to

immediately issue a grand jury subpoena, especially in rural

areas; the time it takes to contact an Assistant United

States Attorney in the context of a time-sensitive

investigation; the lack of a grand jury sitting at the moment

the documents are needed (under federal law, the `return

date' for a grand jury subpoena must be on a day the grand

jury is sitting); or the absence of an empaneled grand jury

in the judicial district where the investigation is taking

place, a rare circumstance that would prevent a grand jury

subpoena from being issued at all.

The reality is that sex offenders often fail to register precisely so they can evade detection and move to a new place where they won't face scrutiny. During the hearings and floor debates on the Adam Walsh Act, the Senate heard of the heart-breaking tragedies caused when sex offenders knowingly evaded registration so they could disappear from detection. Senators from Washington and Idaho went to the floor to describe the registry failures and disappearance of Joseph Duncan, who shortly after his release from custody in 2005, absconded from Minnesota

and traveled across the country to Idaho, where he kidnapped Dylan and Shasta Groene from their home in the middle of the night. In the course of the kidnapping, he murdered the children's mother, brother, and the mother's boyfriend by beating them to death with a framing hammer. He then took the children to remote campgrounds across the state line into Montana, where he brutally abused them and later killed Dylan. As one Senator explained during the debate: ``Joseph Duncan was essentially lost by three States. He moved from State to State to avoid capture. No one knew where he was nor even how to look for him.''

A similar tragic story involved the convicted sex offender who killed Florida 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford. John Couey had failed to tell authorities that he was living in a trailer just feet from Jessica's home. In 2005, he kidnapped Jessica from her bedroom and took her to his home where he raped and killed her. Ernie Allen, the President of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, cited Couey in his congressional testimony in support of the Walsh Act, explaining that he ``was not where he was supposed to be and [his] presence was unknown to the police or Jessica's family even though he lived 150 yards down the street from her and had worked construction at her elementary school.''

As the Lunsford and Groene cases demonstrate, some sex offenders evade the registry requirements because they want to offend again. In these cases, time is law enforcement's enemy. According to the Department of Justice's guide for families with missing children, ``the actions of parents and of law enforcement in the first 48 hours are critical to the safe recovery of a missing child.'' The Lunsford case illustrates how vital it is for law enforcement to quickly locate sex offenders during a missing child investigation. John Couey reportedly told law enforcement that he kept young Jessica alive for three days before he smothered her inside a plastic trash bag. In a case like Jessica's, this type of authority literally could mean the difference between life and death.

This legislation has broad support. When I drafted this language last Congress, I shared it with the Marshals Service and lawyers who work in the field of protecting children from exploitation. These professionals were not only supportive, but also very clear about the need for this subpoena authority.

I strongly support this legislation and am thankful to the broad bipartisan group, including Senators Blumenthal, Hatch, Klobuchar, Grassley, Whitehouse, Cornyn, Kyl, Graham, Lee, Collins, Thune, Coburn, Burr and Chambliss, who have agreed to cosponsor this legislation. I hope the full Senate will take up and pass this legislation soon.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we will soon be voting on a continuing resolution to continue funding the U.S. Government for 3 weeks. I believe that will reduce spending over that 3-week period by $2 billion a week, which is far less than the debt we are incurring in each of those weeks, but it is significant progress. Add it to the $4 billion we did in the previous 2-week CR.

I will support this continuing resolution. It keeps us on track to achieve a $61-billion reduction in Federal spending this fiscal year, which ends September 30. It is important we take action. It is a matter that is important financially to American business interests and foreign business interests that may be thinking of investing in the United States and people who might buy our huge number of Treasury bills that we sell each week and are purchased by people all over the world. They want to know if we have our house in order, if this is a safe place to invest their money.

We need to do something now. When our majority leader, Senator Reid, proposed not $61 billion but that we reduce spending only $4 billion throughout the rest of this fiscal year, I said then and believe now that is only a product of being in the Washington bubble. We are in denial of the reality of the crisis we face. I do not want to talk down the American economy. I believe the American worker is willing to work, is competitive, but we cannot burden that worker with excessive debt.

How does that happen? I am ranking Republican on the Budget Committee. We have heard testimony from Drs. Rogoff and Reinhart, who have written a book called ``This Time is Different.'' Their study of nations that have gotten into trouble financially and have had debt crises over the last 20 years shows a consistent pattern of problems.

One of the things they concluded is that when a nation's debt reaches 90 percent GDP, the economic growth in that country slows down. The median was 1 percent, but the average was more than 1 percent. Some countries had more than a 1-percent drop in growth. Japan has a higher debt than we do, I think the highest in the world. They have an interesting way they have been able to finance it, but they have had no growth for quite a long time. It is consistent with the Rogoff-Reinhart study.

Does that apply to us? We are about 95 percent now. Our debt is surging. By the end of this fiscal year, the numbers are that our debt will be 100 percent of GDP, well above the figure. One might

ask: What does 1 percent growth mean? If we are looking for growth of 2 or 3 percent, 1 percent is half our growth.

What does it mean in other terms? Experts have said that a 1-percent reduction in growth amounts to 1 million jobs lost.

I believe we are beginning to feel a negative pull on our bounce back from this recession as a result of growing debt right now, not years down the road as some people have been saying and predicting; that we are going to have a debt crisis down the road. I hate to say it.

Erskine Bowles, President Clinton's Chief of Staff, was appointed by the President to cochair the debt commission with Senator Alan Simpson. They testified before our committee last week, and this is what they said about the nature of the crisis we face. They spent weeks studying the numbers, hearing from experts all over the world, about our debt situation. They reported that we have to take action now.

In a joint statement they presented to the committee, they said this is the most predictable financial crisis this Nation has ever faced. In other words, they said if we do not change course, it will be the most predictable crisis we have faced.

Senator Conrad, our Democratic chairman, who is very concerned about these issues, asked them when. Mr. Bowles, who himself is a successful financial businessman and financier, said about 2 years. Senator Simpson contributed to the discussion and said: I think a year.

I hope we do not have some sort of debt crisis in a year. The fact that has even been discussed should be a cause for alarm. Let me say, in January, Alan Greenspan said we could have a debt crisis in 2 to 3 years. Moody's has discussed downgrading our debt. They have warned they might downgrade our debt in less than 2 years. We need to take action now. That is the deal. That is the matter.

We had some fine new Members elected to the House and the Senate last Fall. The American people believed those they elected would come to Washington and help us get off this course of wild spending. I believe the American people get it. They are not in a bubble. They know we cannot continue this way. They are prepared to take some action, and we need to do it. If we fail to take action that is noticeable and significant, it would send the wrong message around the world. They would say: Even with this election change that occurred in Washington, you are still not changing your course.

I urged the President before the State of the Union Adderss to talk straight to the American people about the threat we face, and he did not do so. The first 37 minutes of his speech was about new investments he called on us to make. Investments, of course, is new spending. He never once took a few moments to explain to us the kinds of things Mr. Erskine Bowles said or Mr. Alan Greenspan said about how we are on an unsustainable course. He never even acknowledged we are on an unsustainable course. He never warned us that we are going to have to tighten our belts, just as Governors are doing, as mayors are doing all over America. When we do not have money, we do not have money. If we do not have money, we have to change course.

I was disappointed, as were some of our Democratic colleagues, that we have not had the kind of national dialog and ask the American people to receive somewhat less from the Federal Government than they have been.

Why do we have to do it? Because we are facing a crisis in good leadership, which means the leader has to tell the people what the threat is, what the danger is, and how we are going to get out of it.

I truly believe one of the highest duties of any Member of Congress or any leader in America is to protect the American people from foreseeable dangers. As Erskine Bowles said, this is the most predictable crisis we have ever faced. It is heading to a bad end-- hopefully, not as soon as they warned us it could happen so we will have time to get off this course. That is important.

The President said in his State of the Union Address that we will be living within our means. He did a radio address after he submitted his budget, and he said: We are going to be living within our means. My budget puts us on a track to prosperity. We are going to continue to invest, and we will be living within our means and paying down the debt.

Mr. Jack Lew, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, says we are going to be living within our means and paying down our debt. Basically, they are saying: Don't worry. You guys are getting all hyped up. We can still invest. We can still spend. Don't worry about it.

What do the facts say? We do not need political talk; we need a fact- based budget. We need fact-based discussions. The facts are we are not going to be paying down our debt in 10 years under the President's budget. We are not going to be living within our means.

What is the situation? His own budget is four volumes. In that plan it calls for spending levels that increase the total gross debt of the United States from $13 trillion to $26 trillion. Under that plan, the lowest single annual deficit that occurs is over $600 billion. The highest deficit President Bush ever had was 450. That was too high. The lowest he is projecting in his own numbers is 600.

Even more troubling, in years 7, 8, 9 and 10 of his budget the deficits are going up. It is almost $900 billion in the 10th year. How could they say that? How could the President look the American people in the eye and say my budget is going to cause us to live within our means? How could Mr. Lew say that?

I examined Mr. Lew in the Budget Committee. I asked Mr. Lew, the lowest deficit you are going to have is $600 billion. How is that living within our means? He said: Well, there is something called a primary deficit. I said: What? He said: The primary deficit. I asked: Well, what is that? He said: Well, you don't count interest.

You don't count interest. When a family living in tight times today is trying to squeeze their budget, do they not count their interest on their credit card or their mortgage payment? How can they say they are balancing the budget, living within our means and not count interest that we pay on the debt? All of the money we borrow we have to pay interest on. We pay interest on $14 trillion. If it doubles to 26, we will pay interest on that. Last year, our interest payment for the United States of America was about $208 billion in interest payments alone.

Under the President's budget, the interest payment in the 10th year is $844 billion, according to his numbers. This is the fastest growing item in the entire budget. They assume an interest rate at 3.5 percent. I don't think and most experts do not believe that is going to remain so low. This is historically very low. Historically, we average about 6 percent on our debt. So if it went from 3 percent to 6 or 7 percent, instead of $840 billion I guess it would be $1.9 trillion in interest payments. And that could happen if we don't get off this unsustainable path we are on.

I am frustrated about this. People say: Well, this CR business is only discretionary spending. It is only a small part of the overall budget. You shouldn't even attempt to fool with it. You are wasting your time. No, no, no. We are going to have to take every part of the budget and see what we can do to contain the growth in spending, or even reduce spending, to eliminate some spending that is totally worthless because we get no real benefit from it. We need to make our government more productive, lean, and efficient. We can do that.

We cannot continue on this course. The House of Representatives has passed a proposal, a continuing resolution, that would reduce spending through the rest of the fiscal year a total of $61 billion. We should accept that. That is not too much. It is probably not enough, but it is enough to count.

For example, it is a $61 billion reduction in baseline U.S. spending. If you reduce the baseline, even if next year you start going up 1 percent, that 1 percent will be on a baseline that is $61 billion lower. We have calculated the numbers, and over 10 years, that $61 billion, plus the interest you don't have to pay, will save the United States Treasury $860 billion. That is a good step. That does make a difference. People who deny it makes a difference are wrong. It is not going to savage

anybody, unless some of these programs aren't working, and then they ought to be zeroed out. So I want to make that point clear.

How much is the discretionary spending--the money we spend here on education, on highways, on things of that nature--defense? Discretionary nondefense is about 12 percent of the budget; 60 percent or so is in Social Security and Medicare, and they are growing at an unsustainable rate. We need to take steps now to save Social Security, to put Social Security on a path so our seniors can rely on it and our young people can have confidence that when they become senior citizens, they can rely on it also. It is not that difficult to do.

This has been talked about by editorial boards around the country, by experts and economists and professors and Congressmen and Senators for years. But the crisis is getting more real and acute now. Yet what did the President do? He said not one word about that in his State of the Union or his budget. His budget doesn't do anything about any of the entitlements. You can't cut discretionary spending and you can't cut entitlement spending. In effect, they are saying nothing is to be challenged. I know that is not a rational approach to the crisis we are in today.

We have to work together. We have Senators together right now-- Democratic and Republican--who are trying to figure out a way to make some alterations in the trajectory of our debt in America and to put us on a sound path. Democrats and Republicans are meeting--Senator Warner, Senator Chambliss, I think Senator Manchin and others are talking. They want to see us do something historic. I think we need to. But on the Budget Committee, Budget Director Lew said the President wasn't for any change. He took the view that Social Security doesn't have a problem; nothing is going to happen until 2037. Well, what happens then? It falls off a cliff, and that is assuming you count this paper that is supposed to be backing it up. But the money has been spent. We need to get Social Security on a sound course, and we can do it.

We have to work on Medicare, which is even more problematic and more dangerous. We need to get it on a sound course. We need to get our heads together on discretionary spending and contain our growth in discretionary spending, all of which is possible to do. All of that is possible to do. We have the opportunity to put our country on a road to prosperity and growth. We will need to do some things such as reforming our tax laws to more fairly raise revenue in a way that allows more growth to occur, because we need to have growth. We have to create jobs. We need to redo our energy policy and produce more American energy and hold the cost of energy down, not drive up the cost of gasoline and electricity on the American people.

Momentum, I think, is on the side of this. When Majority Leader Reid offered his pittance of a reduction--a $4 billion reduction--10 Democratic Senators defected. They didn't vote for it because they didn't think it reduced spending enough. We had three Republicans who didn't support the $61 billion. They thought it ought to go lower than that. So the momentum out there is to go further than we are going.

The American people get it. Our expert testimony from witnesses tells us that. We have seen Bill Gross, of the PIMCO Bond Fund, the largest fund in the world, say they are not buying any more U.S. Treasuries, basically calling on the United States to reduce our debt. He didn't have confidence in it. We need to get busy and do some things. It is going to have to be done in a bipartisan way, there is no doubt about it.

There are two choices, I believe, truly. One is a tougher road, but it is the road to prosperity. It can return us to the kind of leadership role in the world we need to be in. The other road is the road to decline. Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could, Julie Andrews sang. There is no free lunch. Debts have to be paid. Interest has to be paid on debts. This is reality. We don't live in a fantasy world. The time to stand and be counted is now.

This $61 billion reduction in spending through the last 6\1/2\ or so months of this fiscal year is a statement. It is actual, it is real, it will reduce the total indebtedness of the United States by $860 billion over 10 years. We could do more, but Congress being what it is, slowly coming around to the challenge, we are not ready probably to do more. But we need to do $61 billion. We do not need a compromise halfway, some $30 billion reduction in spending. I do believe that would show weakness on our part--a lack of resolve--which would not be a good signal for our fragile economy today.

We need to meet the test, to face the defining challenge of our time, and that is spending. It is the dominant issue facing America today, no doubt about it. It dwarfs every other issue. I wish it weren't so. When I came, in 1997, I guess we were still fighting over spending then, trying to contain spending, but by 1998 and 1999 we were in surplus. We balanced the budget. They started in 1994 and made some tough decisions. It is going to be harder this time. The hole is deeper, the demographics and the systemic threats to our financial order are greater than it was, there is no doubt about it. But we can do it.

I think it is our time to fulfill our duty--our duty to our Nation and to the American people to preserve America's heritage. We are standing at a time in this country where we have to make a choice. Let's make this choice. Let's do this 3-week extension, take it down $6 billion more over that 3 weeks, and then let's come back and do $61 billion and celebrate the first real step in decades to contain growth and spending. Let's promise this is the beginning. Let's promise that we are going to review all our spending, and we are going to do it in an honest, aboveboard way, fact based, not politics, not smoke and mirrors, or fantasy budgets, but real numbers facing real threats.

If we do that, I think the American people will be supportive. They were supportive in the last election. I believe they will be supportive again.

I thank the Chair for his leadership on these issues in the Senate. I think there is growing consensus here that progress must be made.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we had two important votes yesterday on what we are going to do about the surging debt this Nation is incurring and the dangers that debt poses to the future health of our economy, the prosperity of our people, and the employment of our people.

We had a debt crisis, a financial crisis in 2007, that we still have not recovered from. It damaged us. It damaged American individuals. There are people unemployed in large numbers because of that. We have not yet recovered from it. We have some growth, but we have not yet come out of it. We have to deal with it in a serious way.

So the proposal was, as passed by the House, to reduce the spending for the rest of the 7 months in this fiscal year ending September 30 by $61 billion. Our colleagues in the Senate basically proposed to do nothing, a $4.6 billion reduction in spending over the rest of this fiscal year. That is an unacceptable number. Perhaps we can disagree over where cuts ought to occur, but it is critically important at this time in history, as I will discuss, that we take real action that sends a message and actually saves money, not Washington speak about saving money, but real savings in money.

We can do that. Every city, county, and State is doing that all over the country, and far bigger reductions in spending than we are discussing here. So the House proposal was to reduce discretionary spending $61 billion, which is about a 6-percent reduction in the planned spending level. That is not going to destroy our country. It is still well above the levels we were spending in 2008. But that $61 billion, when calculated over 10 years because it reduces the baseline of our government spending, would calculate a net savings of $862 billion, counting interest, because it is that $61 billion every year plus the interest. We pay interest on the debt we are running up.

We started out projecting a $1.3 trillion deficit this year, the largest in the history of the Republic. But now the scores have gone up, and we are looking at over 1.6. We spend $3.8 trillion, but we are bringing in only $2.2 trillion. This is why 40 percent of what we are spending this year is borrowed.

We have an opportunity now; this CR is it. We need to reduce spending now. People say, well, we can wait. We do not want to reduce spending for some of our favorite programs. This is damaging. We hear the old speeches that sound like they were given 20 years ago about any proposal to cut any spending level is seen as some total disaster, suggesting that the Republic will cease to exist. Of course, Americans know that is not so. They are not buying that. What world are we in?

The President submitted a budget that basically does nothing but continue the increases in spending. We just had the State Department in the Budget Committee. I am ranking Republican on the Budget Committee. They are asking for a 10.5-percent increase in the State Department's spending. The Department of Education was in last week. They want 11 percent. The Department of the Interior was in. The President proposes a 9.5-percent increase in their spending.

Increases in 2012, that is their proposal. What world are they in? What about Transportation? Do you know how much they proposed increasing Transportation? Sixty-two percent. What world are we operating in? People say: You are just exaggerating. It is business as usual. We do not have to make any changes. We need to make investments, Sessions. This country needs to have more investments. The State Department had a 33-percent increase in 2 years. The Education Department had a 30-percent increase. I mean, when does it stop?

If we reduce some of the increases that have been obtained, is that a real cut or is it just moving back to a more sane level? That is what it does. But when we do not have money, we have to make tough decisions.

So, again, the question is, Are we just raising this politically? Are we just trying to make a political point or is there really something that is happening in America that is dangerous and requires us to take this step whether or not we want to take it? Are we required to? Is it real? Do we have a crisis that is dangerous for us?

Mr. Erskine Bowles and Mr. Alan Simpson, Senator Simpson--Mr. Bowles was President Clinton's Chief of Staff--were appointed by President Obama to cochair the debt commission that did their report. This is what they said the day before yesterday, both of them. This was their signed joint statement to the Budget Committee the day before yesterday:

We believe that if we do not take decisive action, our

Nation faces the most predictable economic crisis in its

history.

Are these extremists? They spent months studying the crisis the Nation is in and what it takes to get us out of it. They proposed some substantial changes in what we are doing. Just yesterday they said: We are facing a crisis, the most predictable the Nation has ever faced in its history.

In other words, we can see it coming. People say: Oh, it will not happen to us. Well, they should probably pick up the book, ``This Time Is Different,'' by Professor Rogoff at Harvard and Reinhart at Maryland, one of our other great universities. And their book proposes and shows how governments, sovereigns, get into financial trouble and how quickly bad things can happen. The title of it should tell you something. The title is, ``This Time Is Different.''

The title suggests that all of these great financiers in these countries that ran up too much debt never thought it was going to happen to them, and when people raised questions, they said: Do not worry, this time is different.

Well, is this an extreme book? Is this a dangerous book? They say when your debt, based on history and worldwide studies, reaches 90 percent of your total economy, your total debt equals 90 percent of your GDP, your economy, on average, loses 1 percent growth and is at risk of a catastrophic adjustment, some sort of crisis.

Well, what percent of GDP are we now? We have gone over 95 percent. The experts tell us by September 30, when this fiscal year ends, we will be at 100 percent of GDP. So is this some sort of fearmongering talk or are we just dealing with reality? Are we really facing a crisis we can see plainly in front of us? I suggest it is.

Mr. Geithner, President Obama's Secretary of the Treasury--unlike his Budget Director who also testified before the Budget Committee, Mr. Geithner was more frank when asked: Do you agree with the Rogoff study? Is that a sound study? ``Yes, I believe it is.''

Then he said this, frankly: ``I think it understates the risks.'' Understates the risk. And when asked about that, he said, basically, there can be systemic, immediate shocks that occur that are unpredictable just like in 2007 when all of a sudden we went from a boom to a bust, and as things happened in Greece, Ireland, and Iceland these things can happen in this modern world with electronic financial transfers very quickly.

I believe we can prevent this. I believe we can prevent it. But we have to take action or we are heading in the wrong direction. Did you notice the news yesterday? Bill Gross, who runs the world's biggest bond fund at Pacific Investment Management, announced they had totally eliminated U.S. Government-related debt from their flagship fund, as the United States Government projected record deficits.

So that is a big development, frankly. I mean, he manages more money than anybody in the world--I guess in the history of the world. He has eliminated government debt from the Total

Return Fund, and that was just announced.

So is that something we should be concerned about? I think it is. Because who is going to buy our debt? Who will buy our Treasury bonds, now 10-year bonds, at 3.5 percent or so interest? People who get worried about their debt sell their bonds. Who is going to then buy them? Where are we going to get people to buy our bonds without paying higher and higher interest rates?

Well, is our crisis coming upon us? Let me share with you the testimony that Mr. Simpson and Mr. Bowles gave to the Budget Committee just 2 days ago.

This is what Mr. Bowles said, Cochairman appointed by President Obama. He is very worried.

This problem is going to happen. It is a problem we're

going to have to face up to in maybe 2 years, maybe a little

less, maybe a little more.

He is talking about a crisis. He said it is the most predictable crisis the Nation has ever faced. He is pleading with us to get off the unsustainable path we are on.

What about Alan Simpson, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming who is so frank and articulate. He is also a delight to hear. He said:

I think it will come before 2 years . . . I'm just saying

at some point, I think within a year, at the end of the year,

if they [the people who hold our debt] just thought you're

playing with fluff--5, 6, 7 percent of this hole--they're

going to say, ``I want some money for my paper.'' And if

there is anything money guys love, it's money. And money

guys, when they start losing money, panic. And let me tell

you, they will. It won't matter what the government does,

they'll say, ``I want my money, I've got a better place for

it . . . '' Just saying for me, it won't be a year.

Mr. President, we have a time agreement?

I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

This is from the Washington Post, late January:

In an analysis of the U.S. debt last week, S&P analysts

said the unthinkable could occur unless U.S. officials take

action.

They go on to say:

U.S. officials must act quickly to control government

deficits or face slower growth and even more difficult

choices in the future, the International Monetary Fund said

Thursday in a report criticizing the tepid U.S. response to

its rising debt.

Admiral Mullen, Chairman of Joint Chiefs:

I believe that our debt is the greatest threat to our

national security.

Secretary Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waded into the nation's

fiscal debate Wednesday, calling the expected $1.3 trillion

U.S. deficit ``a message of weakness internationally.''

Clinton says the deficit is a national security threat. It was $1.3 trillion when she said that in September. The projected deficit now is $1.6 trillion-plus. Secretary Geithner said the same.

We have had a debate. We had 10 Democrats defect from the Democratic bill that did nothing, saying we needed to go further. We had two Republicans defect. One Independent defected, probably thought it was cutting too much. But the majority of Members seemed to be saying we need to reduce more.

I suggest that our leaders get together. If there is a disagreement about where the reductions ought to occur, so be it. Let's work that out. But we need to reduce spending significantly. The House number is a minimal amount. I believe it will send a message to the Bill Grosses of the world who move billions of dollars around that this country is willing to take action, even tough action, to get off this unsustainable path.

I yield the floor.