[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 28 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Page S934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           BUDGET CUT DEBATE

  Mr. McCONNELL. 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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. 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.

                          ____________________