[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 168 (Thursday, December 6, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12533-S12534]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE CONTINUING NEED FOR FISCAL DISCIPLINE

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, 2001 has been a year of tragedy for 
the United States as well as a year of resolve. I am proud of the way 
my fellow Americans have united behind efforts to heal and comfort 
their fellow citizens who have been devastated by the attacks of 
September 11.
  Just as the American people have opened their wallets to provide 
hundreds of millions of dollars to those in need, the Federal 
Government so too has provided billions of dollars to make our homeland 
safe, rebuild, comfort and provide, and wage war against the terrorist 
enemies of freedom.
  Protecting our homeland and fighting terrorism are our Nation's top 
priorities right now, and the work of this body and the use of our 
Nation's resources must reflect that.
  One critical way we do that is to vigilantly guard against the misuse 
of the taxpayer's hard-earned dollars and ensure that we get the most 
out of every dollar spent on homeland defense and the war on terrorism. 
Those who seek to use the current crisis as an excuse to spend more on 
pet projects should be ashamed of themselves and their efforts must be 
defeated. We simply cannot afford pork barrel politics right now, 
period.
  Just look how quickly things have changed in our country--with 
amazing speed we went from an environment where some of us were worried 
the government would run out of national debt to repay, to an 
environment where not only is the Federal Government no longer paying 
off debt, but regrettably, it is adding to it.
  The year started out with the President proposing a budget with a 
roughly 4 percent increase in discretionary spending. Given last year's 
enormous 14.5 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending, I 
thought a 4 percent increase was reasonable and realistic, and I was 
pleasantly surprised that the Senate budget resolution didn't 
dramatically exceed this figure, as I feared, but instead was largely 
in-line with the President's budget plan. Because of this, I supported 
the $661 billion in discretionary spending it contained.
  Besides supporting the budget resolution, I also supported the 
President's tax cut, because I saw it fit within a plan whereby 
spending increases would be limited and the Social Security surplus 
would be reserved for reducing the national debt. Clearly the situation 
has changed.
  Even before the events of September 11, Congress was on-track to 
increase overall discretionary spending by approximately 8 percent. To 
facilitate the completion of the annual appropriations process, a deal 
was struck by the Administration and the members of the appropriations 
committee to set a discretionary spending cap of $686 billion in fiscal 
year 2002--$25 billion more than agreed to in the budget resolution.
  This number was agreed to by the appropriators and leaders in both 
parties in both Houses, and the President. In the President's letter to 
the leaders agreeing to this new, revised number he wrote, ``And I 
expect that all parties will now proceed expeditiously and in full 
compliance with the agreement.''
  While I was disappointed that this deal circumvented the budget 
resolution, I believe it quite likely would have been worse if no deal 
had been struck, and Congress had been able to steam roll the budget 
resolution in the urge to spend. Now Congress is poised to leave this 
number and this agreement in the dust as appropriators seek billions 
more.
  Some justify this by saying that the current crisis requires the 
death of fiscal discipline. Nothing is further from the truth. The 
current crisis requires us to be more fiscally disciplined than ever 
before, to carefully direct funds to the most pressing needs of 
defending against and fighting terrorism.
  Compounding the problem is the softening economy and the need to walk 
the tightrope of crafting a stimulus package to provide short-term 
relief without causing long-term harm.
  We are certainly in a grave fiscal situation. Spending is required 
but not too much, stimulus is required but it cannot be overly zealous. 
If we fall from this tightrope, there is no safety net to catch us. 
Instead our Nation falls into the grasping arms of structural deficits, 
from which we only recently freed ourselves after decades of 
imprisonment.
  After working so hard to free ourselves from deficit spending, 
starting to pay off our debt, and beginning to prepare for Social 
Security's looming insolvency, isn't it worth it for us to do all we 
can to keep from slipping back into the clutches of deficits?
  The only way to avoid this is through self-discipline. Every member 
must sacrifice individual political wants for the greater good of the 
nation. We need to avoid pet projects. We need to set aside our 
parochial interests.
  We should proceed very carefully and very deliberately with every 
piece of legislation that authorizes any additional spending or equally 
importantly, reduces revenues. Unless we get a handle on our spending 
habits, we are going to add to the national debt that

[[Page S12534]]

we stand to pass on to our children and grandchildren.
  Sometimes I wonder if my colleagues actually realize how dire the 
condition of the Federal Government has become. As it now stands, for 
fiscal year 2002, we are poised to spend every last tax dollar we 
collect and the entire $174 billion projected Social Security surplus. 
On top of that, we are going to issue new debt to the tune of $52 
billion to pay for the fiscal stimulus bill and another $15 billion on 
top of that if the senior Senator from West Virginia gets his way.
  OMB Director Mitch Daniels, in a speech last week before the National 
Press Club, relayed the same sobering message. According to Director 
Daniels, the Federal Government is on track to run a deficit through 
the remainder of this presidential term.
  So, as we discuss every piece of legislation that will cost money or 
reduce revenues, whether on efforts to fight terrorism or anything else 
we do, we must ask ourselves: Do these new spending initiatives warrant 
issuing new debt to pay for them?
  With this in mind, I am utterly amazed that some of my colleagues are 
proposing new spending.
  For example, the Agriculture Committee is proposing a new farm bill 
that would increase agricultural spending by roughly $70 billion over 
the next 10 years. I ask my colleagues, should we issue new federal 
debt to increase payments to farmers?
  Wasn't the Freedom to Farm bill designed to free farmers from 
dependency upon federal handouts so they could farm as they wished in 
response to international market conditions? Would the farming 
community support these proposals if they knew that we were going to 
have to issue debt to provide such payments? We're poised to debate a 
farm bill yet the old farm programs don't even expire until next year. 
Is this money and this bill the most critical thing we should be doing 
at this time?
  Other colleagues of mine today are proposing additional spending 
increases over and above the $686 billion agreed to with the President 
earlier this Fall, and the $40 billion emergency supplemental passed in 
the aftermath of September 11; $20 billion of which is included in this 
Department of Defense Appropriations bill. They think the Federal 
Government needs to spend an additional $15 billion on homeland 
security.
  The fact of the matter is the Director of Homeland Security, Governor 
Tom Ridge, says we don't need any more funds for homeland defense at 
this time than the amount requested by the President because of what 
we've already passed here on Capitol Hill. Why are we unwilling to take 
his word on this issue? It seems to me that he and the President, our 
Commander in Chief, are more qualified to advise us on what the nation 
needs and we should heed their advice.
  Other colleagues are considering increasing education spending by 
billions of dollars over and above the already large increases agreed 
to by the President and the Appropriations Committee. Again, I ask, 
should we issue new federal debt to increase education spending--which 
as we all know has been, is, and should be primarily a state and local 
responsibility?
  I am flabbergasted to watch this parade of spending proposals at a 
time when we have to dig ourselves deeper in debt to pay for them.
  I am encouraged that the President has taken a stand by pledging to 
veto an emergency supplemental spending measure that would exceed the 
$686 billion spending agreement. I stand squarely behind the President.
  And if the President indeed uses his veto to control spending, I will 
vote against any attempt to override it. Hopefully my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle who care about fiscal responsibility and who 
care about honoring an agreement we made with the President will join 
me in supporting his veto. It is fortunate we have a President with the 
courage to hold fast against rampant spending, even if that spending is 
cloaked in the guise of homeland safety and national defense. The 
Administration recognizes that we have to draw a line and is willing to 
lay it on the line.
  The Senate is supposed to be a deliberative body, a cooling saucer if 
you will. At this crucial time, it is important that the Senate carry 
out its appointed role. If we do increase spending, it should be 
limited to measures that truly enhance domestic and international 
security and efforts that truly stimulate the economy. We should not 
accept the fact that the Treasury Department must once again issue new 
debt to finance the operation of the Federal Government for any longer 
than is absolutely necessary, and every dollar we spend is going to be 
borrowed money.
  The current crisis is not an excuse to spend but is a call to 
vigilance. As we fight for the future security of our country and our 
ideals, let us also fight for the future fiscal health of our nation 
which will in turn help provide for the continued and future stability 
and prosperity of the American people.

                          ____________________