The Budgetby Senator Jeff Sessions
Posted on 2013-01-23
SESSIONS. Madam President, I was pleased to hear a few days ago
that Senator Schumer said we would have a budget in the Senate. It has
been now, I think, about 1,370 days, give or take, since we have had a
budget in the Senate, even though plain statutory law requires the
Congress to have a budget. Now Senator Murray has followed up today, I
believe, with a quote saying: ``. . . the Senate will once again return
to regular order and move a budget resolution through the Budget
Committee and to the Senate floor.''
So the Budget Committee has not been meeting. It has not been doing
its duty. As the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, I have
been aghast at the process and have talked about it for now for over
1,000 days. So this will be a good step.
My colleagues would like to suggest somehow that they decided to do this out of the goodness of their hearts because it is the right thing to do. But I think the American people have had a belly full of this.
The U.S. House of Representatives has repeatedly passed budgets, but the Senate has refused to even bring one up in committee or on the floor for over 2 years now. They have said they are raising the debt limit for about 3 months, but they have declared that the Senate does not get paid until we have a budget. Right now there is no punishment for not passing a budget. I was a Federal prosecutor for over 15 years and know how to read a code. It has no penalty for failing to pass a budget. It says the Senate should bring up a budget. It should complete the budget process in committee by April 1 and then the full Senate should take it up and it should be completed by April 15. The Senate is given priority: 50 hours of debate, virtually unlimited amendments--an opportunity to debate the financial condition of America.
That is why it has not happened. Senator Reid, the Democratic leader for the last several years, has said it would be foolish to have a budget. What he meant was that it would be foolish politically. Because when you bring up a budget, this is a tough thing. The House did that.
Paul Ryan offered a historic budget that would change the debt course of America and put us on a sound path. They had to make some tough choices. So they were, of course, attacked in the election--Oh, these are horrible people; they want to throw old people off the cliff and that kind of thing and it was irresponsible--while during this entire process, the Senate was in direct violation of Federal law that required us to bring up a budget. We did not bring it up because it would be foolish, foolish politically, because we have to take tough votes. We have to stand and be counted. Numbers have to be analyzed: How much are you truly going to raise taxes? Oh, well, is that going to change the debt course? Is this latest $600 billion tax increase going to change the debt course of America? No; it is not. Our deficit last year was about $1,080 billion. How much would this tax increase, this $600 billion, have changed that? That is $60 billion a year. Instead of $1,080 billion or so in deficit, our deficit would have been $1,020 billion. Is that going to fix our problem? No, it will not.
These are difficult problems. These are very difficult problems, and it is not going to be easy. But it was easy to attack the House while not producing a budget. It is a pretty flabbergasting thing to me. So I am glad we are now going to have this process. It will not be easy for Republicans. It will not be easy for Democrats. But what are we paid to do? What responsibility do we have as the Congress--that has the power of the purse--if not discussing the great issues of our time? We are on an unsustainable debt path. Last year there was another trillion-dollar deficit, and they are projecting we will have a trillion-dollar deficit this year. That is 5 consecutive years of trillion-dollar deficits. I know President Bush was criticized, and correctly sometimes, for spending too much. The highest deficit he ever had in 8 years was $470 billion. The year before he left it was $160 billion. President Obama has averaged well over $1,000 billion a year in an annual deficit ever since.
This is not sustainable, as every expert has told us time and time again. So I am worried about it. Maybe we can move out of these secret meetings where the Senate just sits around and we wait for the people to appear, write us a bill at midnight on December 31--actually 1 a.m. on January 1--that is supposed to handle it and nobody has even read it.
That is what we have been doing for the last 4 years. It has worked out good politically because it has kept an honest discussion of the dangerous path we are on from being part of the public debate. We have to have it part of the [[Page S196]] public debate. I am not saying this budget, if it moves through the Senate, is going to solve our problems and that it will be adopted. I am not saying that. But I do believe the American people will understand better the challenges we face and Senators will understand better the challenges we face, how deep they are, how systemic they are.
In 2011, after Republicans won a victory in the midterm elections, there was hope we would have a new budget from the President, that he would reach out to the House that had gotten a Republican majority for a change--they took back the majority, and there were more Republicans in the Senate--and that the President was going to produce a budget that would put us on the right path and maybe a historic path that would help make Social Security and Medicare sustainable, preserve those programs so people can go to bed at night and feel confident these programs not going to go bankrupt and there are not going to be dramatic cuts. We can do that. It would take some belt-tightening, but we could do that. Yet the administration refused: You are just partisan, Sessions.
I am saying, without fear of contradiction by anybody who knows what has happened, that this administration basically has not wanted to talk about those deep spending issues that amount to more than half the money we spend.
That was a challenge. Maybe that logjam has broken and this budget process will give us an opportunity to move forward.
I do not like to be critical of nominees or anyone. I try to be as courteous and respectful as we can to people whom we deal with on a regular basis in the Congress. But I have to share with my colleagues a deep feeling that we have a serious credibility problem with credibility on debt and financing. We have to end that credibility problem. We have to be honest and deal with real numbers.
In January of 2011, Mr. Jack Lew, the then-Director of the Office of Management and Budget, with a substantial staff--one of their primary duties is to produce a budget every year--submitted the President's Budget to Congress. The President always submits a budget--it has been late, but they have always sent them over. The Senate has not moved budgets like it is required to, but every President has always sent over a budget. There was great hope that the budget would be the kind of breakthrough--with a Republican House and a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate--that somehow this would be an opportunity for historic agreement to put America on a sound path and get us off these trillion-dollar deficits, put us on a path to a balanced budget and do the kind of things that are necessary for the welfare of our country.
Mr. Lew produced the budget, and he went on television immediately and talked about it. On Wednesday of that week, he was going to be before the Budget Committee, but this is what he said in his CNN Sunday morning interview about his budget. I would ask you to listen to these words, colleagues and friends, anybody who is watching, and see what they mean to you. He said: Our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore; we're spending money that we have each year-- Money that we have each year-- and then we can work on bringing down our national debt.
That was on CNN.
So he appeared before the Budget Committee and I asked him if that was an accurate statement; did he stand by that. He said: Yes, sir, and he never wavered from that.
I will just say that as part of the budget process we get a stack of documents--this much--from Mr. Lew's office. The Office of Management and Budget submits them--supporting documents--as part of their process. They are easily ascertainable. The numbers are not in dispute.
The lowest single deficit over 10 years that Mr. Lew projected was more than $600 billion. In other words, there was never a balanced budget, never paying down the debt, never a single year we were not borrowing at least $600 billion.
None of what he said is accurate. It is breathtaking. I called it the greatest financial misrepresentation in history. It would have added $13 trillion to the debt of the United States over 10 years, by his own estimate, not stuff I made up. Yet he said we are not going to be adding to the debt anymore.
So I thought, if a businessman reported to potential stock purchasers, our company is on the right track, we are not adding to our debt anymore--we are going to look the American people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore, we are spending only money we have--you are borrowing--the least amount of money you have borrowed in a single year is $600 billion, larger than President Bush ever had in 8 years as President.
When I asked him about it, he insisted that it was true. So we have got a problem here, and that is why I am not going to support Mr. Lew for the Secretary of the Treasury. I am not going to vote for him. I believe he knew exactly what he was saying. He produced a budget that was panned by virtually every editorial board in America. They hammered it as failing to meet the challenge of our time, and he knew it was that way. He is not a person who doesn't understand these issues. He knew what it was all about. But they decided they would go out and spin it this way. They would say it did what the American people wanted.
I hate to be this harsh, but there is only one conclusion. They decided to produce a budget that did not change the debt course of America and left us on an unsustainable path. Even their own numbers show that, but they would tell the American people this, say it was fixed, and maybe lull them into a false sense of confidence.
Then they attacked Paul Ryan of the Republican House for producing a realistic budget. It wasn't a dramatic budget, it didn't even balance in 10 years, but it changed us and put us on a sound path. They would attack him as not caring about people, and for 2 years that is what has happened.
Once we bring a budget to the floor of this Senate, Republicans and Democrats are going to find out this is a very difficult situation we are in. The challenge is going to be very difficult, and we are going to have a hard time dealing with it.
Mr. Lew didn't just make that comment to CNN, in case you think I am exaggerating here. He also said this in an NPR, National Public Radio, interview on February 15, 2011, the day, I believe, of a Budget Committee hearing: If we're able to reduce the deficit to the point where we can pay for our spending and invest in the future, that is an enormous accomplishment. This budget has specific proposals that would do that.
He looked the American people in the eye, or, I guess, talked to their ears on NPR, and said his ``budget has specific proposals'' that would put us in a position to pay for our spending and invest in the future and reduce our deficit.
He went on to say on February 15, 2011, at the Budget Committee hearing--and I think this was my question, Was this an accurate statement that you made,