Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I wish to start this morning by acknowledging the progress that has been made this week. Senator Reid's prediction that the Senate will follow the House in approving a $4 billion cut for the current fiscal year is a small step, but it is indeed a step in the right direction. This is a long-awaited acknowledgment by Democrats in Congress that we have a spending problem around here. It is hard to believe when we are spending $1.6 trillion more than we are taking in in a single year that it would take this long to cut a penny in spending, but it is progress nonetheless. It was also encouraging to hear the White House say yesterday that they would be supportive of a 4-week CR with $8 billion in cuts. So it is encouraging that the White House and congressional Democrats now agree that the status quo won't work and that the bills we pass must include spending reductions.

Beyond that, the GAO report which Senator Coburn requested and which we all saw yesterday makes it pretty clear--to me, at least--that there are a lot of very obvious targets for additional cuts. I wish to thank Senator Coburn for requesting the report, first of all. I don't think most Americans are surprised to hear that Washington is wasting so much money. I do think some people might be surprised at how rampant it is and, frankly, the sheer idiocy--the sheer idiocy--of some of the waste we have been tolerating around here.

I can't imagine anyone in the Senate voting against a bill that would return to taxpayers money we are wasting on the bloated and duplicative programs outlined in this report, programs which, as ABC put it, are chewing up billions of dollars in funding every year. It would be an embarrassment and a double indictment of Congress to not act. The report is damning, but it comes at a good time. Right when we are looking to make cuts on which both parties can agree, we learn that we have a roadmap showing more than 100 programs dealing with surface transportation issues, 82 programs monitoring teacher quality, 80 programs for economic development, 47 programs for job training, and 17 different programs for disaster preparedness. Here is my favorite: 56 programs to help people understand finances.

How do you like that? There are 56 programs to help people understand finances. If that isn't an emblem of government waste, I don't know what is. We are going to be $1.6 trillion in the red this year alone. Not only do we think we are in a position to teach other people about financial literacy, we have 56 overlapping programs to do it. If we are going to create the conditions for private sector job growth in this country, this is a good place to start.

We have to stop spending money we don't have on more government and calling that progress. Democrats have tried that. They have borrowed $3 trillion over the past 2 years to expand the size and scope of government. And what has it gotten us? It has gotten us 3 million more lost jobs.

We have made some progress this week--a very small step, perhaps, but one in the right direction. At the same time, the White House took another step backward this week by failing to fulfill another responsibility. According to the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, the President is required to submit a reform proposal for Medicare if more than 45 percent of the program's finances are being drawn from the government's general revenue fund instead of a fund specifically set aside for Medicare for 2 years in a row. As of today, that is the situation. As of today, that is the situation. The President is supposed to have taken care of this, but he hasn't. He is punting on this responsibility just as he punted on other reforms in the 10-year budget plan he released last month.

Washington's unsustainable spending on entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security must be addressed now--now--and we will never be able to ensure the stability and solvency of any of them without Presidential leadership. In this case, that is not just my opinion; the law actually requires it.

Now, just one more word on the continuing resolution. Once we pass this stopgap spending measure, we will be right back at it again 2 weeks from now unless we can reach an agreement on a long-term measure before then.

The House has sent us a bill that will keep the government funded through the end of the year. At the moment this next continuing resolution expires, we will be nearly halfway through the fiscal year. The House bill contains a much needed defense spending bill for the rest of the year. Many important programs have been delayed, and Secretary Gates has made clear that further delay will harm combat readiness. So there are many compelling reasons for us to reach agreement on a longer term bill.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life, legacy and extraordinary accomplishments of Ms. Kate Ireland, who passed away peacefully at her home at Foshalee Plantation in northern Florida on February 15, 2011. She was 80. Kate was a prime example of a woman who gave back to

her community through her passion for public service, conservation efforts, and volunteerism. Her tenacious spirit and determination made her one of the most inspiring and hardworking people I have ever had the privilege of knowing, and I am honored to have called her my friend.

Coming from a successful family with a rich tradition of philanthropy and public service, Kate's interest in volunteerism and conservation began at an early age. Her parents, the late Robert and Margaret Ireland, were also avid philanthropists and conservationists who taught Kate to admire and appreciate the beauty of life around her. It was this sense of appreciation that inspired her to hold a lifelong dedication to philanthropy of the arts, education, and health care.

After graduating from St. Timothy's in Baltimore and attending Vassar College for a year, Kate realized that she had another calling in life to fulfill. So, 20-year-old Kate packed her bags and moved to the Commonwealth to volunteer at the Frontier School of Midwifery and Family Nursing, a nursing service to the underserved families of the remote regions around the southeastern Kentucky town of Hyden. Continuing the work of her grandmother and sister, who also volunteered there, Kate served as a courier by looking after the horses and jeeps used by the nurse midwives, tending to the milk cows and pigs that were kept by Frontier, and packing supplies for the nurses for their rounds.

Even early on, Kate's fearless leadership was recognized by her Frontier mentors, as many people looked to her to make sure things got done and done correctly. This ``dogged determination,'' as many who knew her described it, is what moved her to volunteer for the position of director of volunteers for 14 years. Kate's no-nonsense, professional demeanor eventually led her to collect numerous other titles, such as chairman of the Development Committee, vice chairman of the board, and ultimately the title of national chairman of the Board of Governors in 1975, a position she held for 17 years. Respectfully, Kate remains the board's honorary chairman.

Although Kate was an avid traveler with residences in Georgia, Maine and Florida, she remained a guiding force in the Commonwealth for advancements in education and health care for nearly six decades. Kate lent her expertise, advice, hard work and financial support to FNS as well as Hyden Citizens Bank, the Kentucky River Area Development District in which she was chairman, and Berea College, where she was also chairman and trustee.

Kate once said that going to Kentucky had always been in the cards for her. Well, she couldn't have been more right. Because of her generosity and dedication, countless Kentuckians have benefited from education and training programs that she loyally supported and established, such as the Community-Based Nurse-Midwifery Education Program, The Mary Breckinridge Chair to support the faculty of Frontier, and the Kate Ireland and Kitty Ernst Scholarships which are awarded to students annually. She was an upstanding woman who dedicated most of her life to serving others. Her impressive accomplishments and pleasant manner left a wide-reaching legacy that forever changed her community, and there is no doubt that the Commonwealth is poorer for her loss. My thoughts go out to her sister, Louise; her dear friend Anne Cundle; and many other friends and family. The Leslie County News recently published an article about Kate and the legacy she left behind. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Madam President, later today the House of Representatives will take an important vote. At bottom, it is a vote on whether lawmakers in Washington should continue to be exempt from the rules.

Over the past 2 years, millions of Americans have lost jobs and homes. Tragically, many have stopped looking for work altogether. They think the situation won't improve. When one considers how Democrats in Washington have responded to this historic jobs crisis, it is no wonder. For 2 years, Democrats in Washington have pushed one proposal after another that has kept the economy from growing and stifled the creation of good private sector jobs. They have tried to tax energy consumption. They have picked winners and losers in industry. They have handcuffed small business owners with a mountain of stifling regulations, including a health care bill that nonpartisan experts predict could lead to hundreds of thousands of more lost jobs. Earlier this month, at a time when economists say rising gas prices could delay an economic recovery even longer, Democrats proposed--get this--a change in the current tax laws that would amount to a new tax on everyone who drives a car or truck in America--a minivan tax.

While the American people have been begging lawmakers to remove the burdens of government so they can do the work of growing the economy and creating private sector jobs, Democrats in Washington have been focused single-mindedly on growing government instead. In order to do it, they have basically exempted themselves from the rules. They have said that while the rest of the country has had to tighten its belt in a down economy, Washington can continue on its spending binge in order to grow the government. They have said that while American families have had to pay off their credit cards, Washington can continue to rack up debt. They have said that while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, they don't have to. That is what this afternoon's vote in the House is all about.

This bill should not be controversial. It has only become controversial because Democratic leaders in Congress have resisted every effort--every effort--to rein in their spending bills. This bill proposes to cut spending for the next 2 weeks by $4 billion, and they have fought it tooth and nail. They refuse to admit that Washington has a spending problem. But the verdict is in. For 2 years, Democrats in Washington have spent trillions more than we had in the Treasury. And if expanding the size and scope of government was the goal, it was a big success. But if helping the economy and helping people find jobs was the goal, it has been a disaster. What has $3 trillion more in debt gotten us? Three million more lost jobs.

Tonight's vote is an opportunity for House Democrats to admit the status quo isn't working. It is a chance to take a small first step toward growing the economy and helping create jobs. Then, later this week, Democrats in the Senate will have the same opportunity to show that they get it. Americans are watching. They want us to acknowledge that we need to play by the same rules they do. They want us to tighten our belts, too, and show we are in this together.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to extend my congratulations to the Senator from Pennsylvania for his initial speech, including his comments about his important amendment, which is actually pending to the patent bill

which hopefully we will have an opportunity to vote on in the very near future.

I yield the floor.

First, let me congratulate the Senator from Georgia for

his excellent presentation of George Washington's Farewell Address. It has been an important Senate tradition for many years. I thank him for his reading of that for all of us on this important occasion.

Mr. President, I wish to start by welcoming everyone back from the recess. It is good to be back. Time away from Washington is an opportunity to step back and measure the priorities of party against those of people who sent us here to make sure they are properly aligned.

As the two parties reengage this week in a debate about our Nation's finances, it is vital that we focus not on mere partisan advantage but on what is right for the Nation. When it comes to the two choices before us of either maintaining an unsustainable status quo on spending or beginning to cut spending, the choice could not be more clear.

This morning's news brought word that a 47-member panel of some of the Nation's top business economists view government overspending as the top threat to our economy. In other words, a majority of those experts think Washington's inability to live within its means is the single greatest threat to our Nation's economic future. This is not a groundbreaking observation. After all, Americans have been telling lawmakers for more than 2 years that business as usual simply will not cut it anymore. They want us to get our fiscal house in order and to start to create the right conditions for private sector job growth. But today's news is further confirmation of the stakes in the debate over spending and that Democrats in Congress need to rethink the approach they have taken up to now.

The message from the November elections is quite clear: Stop spending money we don't have. Yet Democratic leaders persist in defending budgets that do just that well into the future.

Earlier this month, the President unveiled a 10-year budget for the government. At no point in this 10-year projection would the government spend less than it takes in. It does not even try. Just look at the estimates for this year alone. Unless we start to cut this year's projected spending, Washington will spend more than $1.5 trillion more than it takes in--$1.5 trillion more than it takes in this year--about $350 billion more in red ink than we had last year. That is $350 billion more in red ink than we had last year. Think about that--a $350 billion increase in deficit spending over last year after an election in which the voters unambiguously said they want us to cut spending and stop adding debt.

Next year, Democrats in Congress want us to do it again. Once again, they plan to spend more than $1 trillion more than we take in, and the same pattern the year after that. They want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars more than we take in. And on and on.

All of this overspending, of course, just adds to our overall debt. When you add it all up, the numbers are truly staggering. As a result of Democratic budgets, the Federal debt 5 years from now is expected to exceed $20 trillion--5 years from now, $20 trillion. Interest payments alone on that debt will exceed $\1/2\ trillion a year. That is just interest payments on the $20 trillion debt--$\1/2\ trillion a year. Talk about a disconnect.

The American people have spent the last 2 years trying to get their own fiscal houses in order. Millions have lost their jobs. Millions more have lost their homes. Meanwhile, what have the Democrats in Washington been up to? On the day the President was sworn into office, the national debt was $10.6 trillion. In the 25 months since, it has increased by about $3.5 trillion. And despite a national uprising over this profligacy and an election that represented a wholesale repudiation of it, here is the President's response: Spend more. He calls it investments.

What about Democratic leaders in Congress? Are they reading the writing on the wall? Until this past weekend, they insisted they could not agree to cut a dime in spending--not a dime. Rather than look for ways the two parties can work together to rein in spending, they looked for ways to marginalize those who are working hard to come up with ways to do it. They called anybody who wanted to cut a dime in spending an extremist. I will tell you what is extreme, Mr. President. What is extreme is $20 trillion in debt. That is what is extreme. Or $\1/2\ trillion in interest payments a year is extreme. Refusing to agree to even try to live within your means is extreme.

Tomorrow, the House will have a vote on a 2-week spending bill. This bill represents an effort to change the culture in Washington. It says: Let's start to change the mentality around here. Let's find $4 billion that all of us can agree to cut and cut it and continue from that good start. Democratic leaders in Congress have resisted even this up until a few days ago. Now they have started to suggest they might be willing to agree to it. This is progress.

This week, Democrats will have the opportunity to show they have gotten the message. They can show they agree the time has come to change the status quo. Less spending, lower debt, reining in the size and scope of government, that is what is needed. That is how we will create the conditions for private sector job growth.

Democratic leaders in Congress have tried record spending and deficits. What has it gotten us? More than $3 trillion more in debt and 3 million more jobs lost--$3 trillion in new debt while we lost 3 million jobs. Democrats have an opportunity this week to show they get it. They have an opportunity to show that the status quo on spending and debt is no longer an option, to turn a corner. A lot depends on how they respond to that opportunity. Will they continue to see what they can get away with or will they finally concede that the old way of doing business must come to an end?

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the remarkable life and career of one of baseball's greatest legends, and a native of the Commonwealth, the late Mr. Earle B. Combs. Known far and wide to fans as the Kentucky Greyhound, the Silver Fox and the Kentucky Colonel, Earle was a prime example of a gentleman who knew the value of hard work and determination.

Earle began his journey to greatness as a child on his father's farm in Pebworth, Owsley County, KY, where he and his siblings would play pickup games with homemade baseballs constructed out of leather and rubber trimmings from old, worn-out shoes and tightly wound string, and bats made with tree limbs found around the yard. Each spring, when warmer weather came, the rolling hills of farmland and hollows provided Earle with the perfect setting to develop a love for America's pastime.

But, as he grew older, he decided his calling in life was to teach. In 1917, Earle left his hometown of Pebworth to attend Eastern Kentucky State Normal School, now Eastern Kentucky University, and received his teaching certificate in 1919. To help pay for his education, Earle returned to eastern Kentucky to teach in one-room schools in Kentucky towns like Ida May and Levi. That was until destiny had other plans.

In 1918 after a faculty-student baseball game, Earle's abilities caught the eye of Dr. Charles Keith, an Eastern Kentucky State Normal School dean and former pro player, who recommended he try out for Eastern's team. After successfully landing a spot on the team, Earle's talent on the field started to gain him some much-deserved attention. In the summer of 1921, after his last season on Eastern's team, Earle played semiprofessional baseball in several Kentucky towns until he was offered a contract with the Louisville Colonels.

During his 2 years with the Colonels, Earle's miraculous talent earned him his career-long reputation as a line-drive hitter with reckless base-stealing ability. In 1924, this reputation traveled north all the way to New York, where the New York Yankees bought the young and talented Earle for $50,000.

In the years that followed, Earle became a leadoff hitter for the famed Yankees ``Murderers Row,'' a lineup of the late 1920s and early 1930s, and a member of the 1927 World Championship Yankees team where he played alongside other greats by the names of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. He was errorless in the 16 World Series games in which he played throughout his career, and ended with a career batting average of .325.

Earle retired in 1935 after sustaining a brutal outfield injury the year before, but remained a coach for the Yankees until 1944, during which he trained other baseball greats such as Joe DiMaggio. He was named to the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY, in 1970.

Earle coached for several other teams before returning to Madison County where he served as a banking commissioner during Governor A.B. Chandler's second administration and on Eastern Kentucky University's board of regents for 19 years, serving as chairman for 2 of those years. Earle was a leader both on and off the diamond. He was known as a loving family man, a successful businessman, and above all, a true gentleman. He was a devoted father and grandfather and a loyal husband to his childhood sweetheart, the late Ruth Combs.

He valued hard-work and knew the importance of higher education. There is no question that Earle was someone who forever changed the game of baseball, who left an impression on those he taught, and who left a lasting legacy in both his community and throughout the Commonwealth.

The Booneville Sentinel recently published an article introducing a new

portrait of the late Earle B. Combs that was hung on the outside of the courthouse in Owsley County, KY, on December 30, 2010. What an honor for this athlete and legend from his hometown and home county. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, yesterday, Republicans in both the House and Senate, led by Senator Hutchison, introduced a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to repeal the so-called net neutrality regulations recently adopted by the Federal Communications Commission.

We believe, as most Americans do, that the Internet has transformed our society precisely because people have been free to create and innovate free from government intrusion. As Americans become more aware of what is happening here, I suspect many will be as alarmed as I am at the government's growing involvement in this area of our lives. They will wonder if this is a Trojan horse for further meddling by the government. We intend to use the tools available to us to push back against this meddling, and I want to thank Senator Hutchison for taking the first step in our effort.

Mr. President, two years ago today, at a moment of deep economic uncertainty, the President signed a bill that he said would put us back on track. It was a plan, he said, that would ``save or create'' up to 4 million jobs over 2 years--a figure that he called his bottom line for success, a plan that was supposed to drive unemployment below 7 percent by now. And it was predicated on the notion that government spending--spending borrowed money on government programs--was the recipe for a rebound; a plan that said if we ``invest'' in government, we will get out of this mess.

We were told the bill included record investments. And then we learned what the administration means by ``investment:'' a plant database project; a multimillion dollar facelift for the Sunset Strip; a study of the mating decisions of female cactus bugs; hundreds of millions of dollars to a solar panel company that was supposed to double its workforce but ended up cutting jobs instead; massive bailouts to the States; turtle tunnels. Senators get the drift.

Within a year of its passage, the so-called stimulus bill had become a national punchline.

Nearly a trillion dollars was added to the debt as a result of this bill in the name of investing in our future. And in the 2 years since it was signed, we have lost millions of jobs.

And now they want to do it again. They are back for more.

Just as amazing is the fact that the same people who touted this bill now refuse to cut government spending. We learn about another wasteful stimulus project just about every day, and they say they can't find a dime's worth of government spending to cut?

It defies common sense.

I mean, if we can't cut a turtle tunnel when the country is $14 trillion in the hole, we have problems. It is time to turn over the credit card.

The bottom line here is that 2 years after the President told us he was investing in our future, here is what we have to show for it: higher unemployment than they predicted and trillions more in debt.

The fact is, dangerously high debt has actually slowed the recovery, making it harder to create private sector jobs.

So in my view this second debate was over before it started.

Massive government investment of borrowed taxpayer money as a tool for economic growth has been a failure.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the people of Paducah, KY, for all of the efforts they have made to make their city one of our country's best places in which to work, visit or live. Now that hard work has paid off. Paducah has been recognized by the National Trust for Historic Preservation as one of their Dozen Distinctive Destinations in America in 2011.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation seeks to recognize cities and towns that offer an authentic cultural and recreational experience. They take into account a community's commitment to the historic preservation and revitalization of its downtown, its rich cultural history, attractive architecture and a town's core character. Obviously, I think Paducah ranks highly in all of these criteria, and I am glad the National Trust for Historic Preservation, after considering thousands of communities across the Nation, agrees.

The history of Paducah is a history of life on the river. Paducah was originally settled because of its strategic position on the Ohio River, and traffic on the Ohio and the Tennessee River drove its economic development. As rivers were America's original highways, Paducah was founded on vital arteries of trade and commerce.

That history is still alive in Paducah because of the hard work of many to preserve their city's heritage. For years I have worked along with local leaders to enhance some of the city's greatest attributes; namely, Paducah's downtown and riverfront. Paducah is now a vibrant river town. I would encourage my colleagues, the next time they are planning a vacation, to keep Paducah in mind.

The National Quilt Museum of the United States, the River Discovery Center, the Lower Town Arts District, the Upper Town Heritage Walking Tour, and much more await them there. I will point out that the National Trust for Historic Preservation also recently named Paducah as having one of the most romantic main streets in America.

The Paducah Sun recently published an article about this high honor received by the city.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, as the debate over government spending comes into focus this week, I think it is worth noting once again how this debate has shifted in recent weeks.

After 2 years of bailouts and stimulus bills, we are finally talking about how much government should cut instead of how much it should spend.

Obviously, the details matter. And we will be working those out in the weeks ahead. But the fact that this debate has shifted is a testament to the millions of Americans who insisted that their voices be heard on this issue. They have made a difference. It is important we acknowledge that.

Now the question shifts to whether those in power will actually follow through in any serious way. Will Democratic leaders in Washington really do something to rein in a government we can no longer afford or will they just pretend to and hope the American people focus on their words instead of their actions.

Unfortunately, the early signs are discouraging.

The President's response to the growing national alarm about spending and debt was a proposal to freeze government spending at the already- irresponsible levels that he himself has set over the past 2 years-- levels that, if maintained, will only intensify the current crisis by putting us deeper and deeper in debt.

The consensus on the President's proposal is that it is both unserious and irresponsible, and that, despite what the President may say, he is not in fact treating this crisis with the seriousness it demands. The President even seemed to concede the point yesterday, saying his budget wasn't adequate to the task and suggesting that maybe Congress could do something more meaningful than he has.

And what do we find in Congress?

Well, we find one party in the House of Representatives making a genuine effort to cut spending and debt, and we find Democrats in the Senate announcing today that they intend to line up behind the President's timid proposal for a partial spending freeze.

In other words, Democratic leaders in Congress intend to join the President

in resigning themselves to a future of growing debts and deficits at a time when Americans are demanding cuts instead.

So here is what we have learned this week: on the most pressing issue of the day, the President and Democratic leaders in Congress have decided to take a pass. They are either unwilling to admit that Washington needs to live within its means or they are completely unwilling to make the tough choices that will get us there.

It is hard to believe, really.

Americans are screaming at us to do something about a $14 trillion debt, the President proposes a budget that nearly doubles it, and Democrats clap their hands in approval.

Maybe Democrats were so focused on passing their health care bill last year they didn't notice what has been going on in Europe.

Maybe they were so focused on defending their stimulus that they missed a national uprising right here at home about the spending and the debt they have racked up.

Maybe they missed the fact that while they were busy adding $3 trillion to the debt, nearly 3 million Americans lost their jobs.

Maybe they have been so focused on passing their agenda that they didn't notice the fact that the American people just repudiated their entire agenda.

They need to get real.

The men and women who were sent to Washington this year were not sent here on a mission to keep spending at the levels this administration has set. They were sent here to change the culture, to convince the administration that it needs to change its ways.

Democrats in Washington seem to think they can wait it out; that if they just agree to freeze current spending levels in place people will think they are listening. Don't they realize that current levels of spending are the reason we just had the biggest wave election in a generation?

The senior Senator from New York seems to think that anything short of freezing current spending levels is extreme.

I will tell you what is extreme: extreme is to insist in the middle of a jobs and debt crisis that government has to spend a trillion dollars more than we take in every year.

That is extreme.

Extreme is a view of the world that says government will not live within its means, even when the American people demand it.

Extreme is a view of the world that says the survival of this or that program is more important than the survival of the American dream itself.

Extreme is telling our children they may have to do without because we refuse to do with less.

So I suggest to my Democratic colleagues that they stop thinking about what they can get away with and start thinking about what is actually needed to solve this crisis.

I suggest they start listening to the American people who are telling us in no uncertain terms that a freeze will not cut it.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, earlier today, President Obama showed the American people just how he intends to spend their tax dollars, and how much more intends to borrow, to fund his vision of the future. And it is a huge disappointment to those in both parties who were hoping the President would take this opportunity to address the grave and imminent fiscal crises we face. The President's budget is the clearest sign yet he simply does not take our fiscal problems seriously.

It is a patronizing plan that says to the American people that their concerns are not his concerns.

It is a plan that says fulfilling the President's vision of a future of trains and windmills is more important than a balanced checkbook.

It is a plan that asks our children to pay for an imaginary vision of the future that may or may not come about by adding trillions to a debt that will be very real to them indeed.

The President's budget comes in at close to a thousand pages. The people who voted for a new direction in November have a five-word response: We don't have the money.

We don't have the money.

Americans have been asking a crucial question as we approached this debate: how do we get back to balance, how do we get to a place where Washington spends less than it takes in. And the simple fact about this budget is that the President and all his advisers couldn't come up with a single year in the next 10 where we do that.

That is the key question in this debate, but it is the one question that the President and all of his advisers don't seem to have been the least bit interested in.

The White House wants us to engage in a debate this week about percentage cuts at this or that agency, about milti-year projections and CBO scores. It all misses the point. The real point is this: We are broke. We don't have the money.

Look: there is a time to experiment with high-flown plans and to test theories. But we have to balance the checkbook first. We have to be able to afford it. The American people get that. This administration doesn't seem to.

After 2 years of failed stimulus programs and Democrats in Washington competing to outspend each other, we just can't afford to do all the things the administration wants.

The President has said he wants us to win the future. But this budget abdicates the future. It spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. It says that the President does not have the will or the ability to do what we need to do with the money that we have. But that is precisely what the Americans are demanding that we do.

Americans reject the idea that they have to live with another $13 trillion in debt to fund the President's or anyone else's vision of the future.

This budget was an opportunity for the President to lead. He punted. It only pretends to do the things people want. And the reaction we have seen from across the political spectrum so far today suggests that nobody is buying it.

The President may be determined to keep spending levels at the current high levels--high levels he put in place--in the hope that people will get used to them. But he has clearly misread a public that has had enough.

We must live within our means. We must begin to do the difficult but necessary work of reining in a government that has grown beyond our ability to pay for it. We must acknowledge the mistakes of the past 2 years and work to correct them.

The stimulus failed. This budget says ``Do it again.''

The President has already added more than $3 trillion to the debt as we lost another 3 million jobs. This budget says let's add more debt and see if we get a different result.

The President had an opportunity to cut domestic spending from the 25 percent he has increased it since he came into office. Instead, he locked it in place.

He had an opportunity to start to pay down the tremendous burden of debt that he has added over the past 2 years. He wants to increase it instead.

He had an opportunity to work with Republicans on reforming long-term entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He took a pass.

This is a status quo budget at a time when serious action is needed.

This is business as usual at a time when bold, creative solutions are needed.

This is not an I-got-the-message budget. It is unserious, and it is irresponsible.

We need to look for ways to preserve what is good that does not put us on path to bankruptcy. That was the challenge of this budget. The administration failed the test.

After years of overspending by both parties, it is time to make tough choices, just as any family does when times are tough, even among very good things. We have to cut even from programs that are good, as difficult as it is, recognizing that the values we are fighting for in this debate are more fundamental than the survival of any one program. We need to face that fact that we do not have the money. It is not an American value to borrow from others to pay for programs we do not need and cannot afford. And it is not an American value to put off tough decisions because we refuse to say no to things we want.

If there is any good news in this debate, it is that we are finally beginning to talk about how much to cut in this town instead of how much to spend. But we are going to need more people to join the fight. We will need Democrats to join us. Above all, we need a President who gets it. And this President clearly does not get it yet.

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