[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 70 (Thursday, May 7, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5250-S5252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I wish to talk a little bit about the 
budget and specifically about the proposal

[[Page S5251]]

sent by the President yesterday. Yesterday the President sent us his 
formal budget. We have already voted on a budget, of course. We passed 
a budget. The President doesn't have to sign the budget. That is one of 
the ironies of our system. But he does present us with an outline. 
Because this was a transition year, it is traditional that the 
President doesn't send us in-depth proposals. He sends sort of a 
topical approach in early February and then sends us in-depth proposals 
later in the year. In the last few days, he sent the in-depth 
proposals. Among the proposals, and what is being most obviously 
highlighted, is requested rescissions in about 120 programs 
representing approximately $17 billion. I congratulate him for that. 
That is an attempt to reduce spending in those accounts and recover 
those dollars back into the Federal Treasury.
  But that has to be put in context, the initiative to save $17 
billion. That is a lot of money. It could run the State of New 
Hampshire for at least 3 or 4 years. But in the context of the Federal 
budget, it is not a dramatic amount. In fact, it represents less than 
one-half of 1 percent of the Federal budget, which will be 
approximately $3.5 trillion this year. So taking $17 billion out of 
spending programs is not going to solve our overall problem, which 
involves the fact that we are headed into a nonsustainable government 
because of the size of spending we are doing and because of the size of 
the debt we are running up. I do congratulate him for putting forward 
this initiative. I hope it will pass. I hope the $17 billion will 
actually be passed by this Congress. But regrettably, most of the items 
he sent to be rescinded had already been sent by President Bush, not 
most but a significant amount. Forty percent had already been sent to 
us by President Bush and had been rejected by the Congress, which is 
too bad. It was unfortunate when they were rejected under President 
Bush. I hope the Congress will take a second look and accept them now 
that they have been given the imprimatur, the approval of President 
Obama, so we have a bipartisan effort to rescind at least 40 percent of 
the amount.
  In the end, it doesn't change the outyear deficit figures at all. In 
fact, this amounts to less than an asterisk when it comes to the amount 
of debt and deficit which we will be running up as a government.
  Even with this rescission of $17 billion, assuming it was passed by 
the Senate and the House and signed by the President and these various 
programs were reduced, we would still run a deficit of 4 to 5 percent 
of gross national product over the next 10 years under the President's 
proposals. We would still run a deficit that would average $1 trillion 
a year over the next 10 years. We would still run a deficit which would 
add to the debt at such a fast rate--in other words, deficits become 
debt--that we would end up with a Federal debt that would be 
approximately 80 percent of the gross national product or doubling of 
the Federal debt during the first 5 years of this Presidency. None of 
those numbers will be changed by these rescissions because they don't 
go to the core of the problem.
  The core of the problem is, the Government is being expanded 
dramatically, even while these rescissions are occurring. The rate of 
growth of the Federal Government, as a result of expanded spending 
which has been initiated by this administration, in large part, will 
dwarf any savings that occur under this rescission proposal. It is as 
if we had a vast desert of sand. It is as if this was the Gobi Desert 
or the Sahara Desert and we came along and took a few pieces of sand 
off the desert. It will virtually have no impact on the deficit and the 
debt as we move forward into the outyears because of the fact that 
while we are taking these few dollars out, which I congratulate the 
President for trying to do, we are adding back massive amounts of 
spending: $1.4 trillion in new discretionary spending compared to the 
$17 billion rescission, $1.2 trillion in new entitlement spending 
compared to this $17 billion rescission. We are taking a little 
spoonful of water out of the ocean while we are dumping a whole river 
into the ocean. So the water levels go up. The debt levels go up and 
the burden on our children goes up. The cost of the Government and the 
debt of the Government is and remains an unsustainable event for the 
Nation and for future generations.
  If the President wishes to be serious about spending restraint--and I 
hope he is, though it doesn't appear that way from his budget--he would 
address the underlying problem, which is that we don't expand the 
Government to take up 23, 24, 25 percent of gross national product when 
it historically has been about 20 percent, that we don't radically 
expand spending programs until we have an economy that is generating 
enough revenues so we can pay for them and that we basically try to 
contain in the outyears the cost of entitlement spending by putting in 
place proposals which will lead to limiting the costs in the outyears.
  The Senator from Nebraska was recently talking about health care. 
Health care is obviously at the core of issues of how we control costs 
around here and how we control the outyear growth of the Federal 
Government. We today spend 17 percent of the gross national product on 
health care. That is approximately 5 to 6 percent more than the next 
closest industrialized nation. Yet the President's proposals are to add 
another $1.4 trillion on top of what we already spend in the area of 
health care. That makes no sense fiscally. It makes no sense from the 
standpoint of what the health care system needs. We already have enough 
funds in the health care system. We should agree that what we are going 
to try to do is stabilize the cost of health care as a percentage of 
our gross national product and use the dollars that are already in the 
system to reform it.
  We know we have a huge amount of surplus money in the health care 
system compared to any other industrialized nation. Rather than 
throwing more money at the problem, adding to the debt and deficit, 
let's try to be responsible about a reform program, to live within our 
means--they are not even our means--to live within what we are already 
spending and spend those dollars more wisely. Those are the types of 
initiatives we need.
  Obviously, it is helpful to reduce spending by $17 billion. I hope we 
accomplish it. Congress has rejected 40 percent of these proposals in 
the past, but I hope we change our minds. Just yesterday, for example, 
this Senate passed a housing bill which spent $11 billion outside and 
on top of the budget, new spending. So we have already spent almost all 
the money represented as being saved by the President's proposal. 
Fiscal discipline does not seem to be the order of the day around here. 
I appreciate at least the effort, but I think it does have to be put in 
the context of the overall problem.
  It is akin to taking a teaspoon of water out of a bathtub while we 
keep the spigot on at full speed and the bathtub doesn't fill up. It is 
a spigot of spending, of Government growth. There is a belief, 
regrettably, in this Congress, because of the majority view and from 
the White House, that by grandly expanding the Federal Government, by 
moving it dramatically to the left in its size, by growing it 
significantly, we somehow create prosperity.
  We can't do it that way. The only way we can create prosperity is if 
we have a government we can afford. If we are running up deficits at 4 
to 5 percent of GDP, if we are taking the national debt up to 80 
percent of the gross national product, we will not create prosperity. 
We will create significant hardship for the next generation which has 
to pay off all the debt.
  I hope this proposal for rescission which has been sent up will be 
followed on with proposals that are serious in the area of controlling 
the spigot which is dumping all the spending into the Federal account. 
Turn that down. Let's put some controls on the spending side of the 
ledger that get to the broader problem of the size of the debt and the 
size of the deficit in real numbers, not just at the margins.
  I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be equally divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S5252]]



                          ____________________