[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 29, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1910-S1912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, government funding is set to expire
next week on April 8. We are in the midst of the 2011 fiscal year that
ends September 30, and the Congress has only appropriated money through
April 8. If Congress does not act by that time, the government would
shut down.
Congress needs to act, but Congress needs to listen to the American
people and listen to the financial experts whom we have dealt with and
reduce spending and reduce the surging deficit we face this year, last
predicted to be $1.4 trillion. Nothing has ever been seen like it
before, and it has to be addressed. There is no way around it.
So we have this deadline hanging over our heads, and the reason is,
my colleagues in the Democratic leadership in the Senate will not agree
to the kind of substantial but realistic spending reductions the House
of Representatives has sent to us. The House has sent us a budget plan
that I think will work. But what we hear is, the sky will fall if we
trim the $61 billion from a $3.7 trillion budget--$3,700 billion that
we spend--if we reduce that spending by $61 billion, somehow this will
cause the country to sink into oblivion.
The American people know better than that. That is not realistic. Of
course, we can cut those kinds of numbers out of this huge budget we
have, and the American people will be better off for it.
As ranking member on the Budget Committee, I have looked at the
numbers, and that $61 billion reduces the baseline of Federal spending
by $61 billion this year, but over 10 years--because it is a baseline
reduction--it would save $860 billion. This is the kind of small but
significant step that does make a difference.
People say: It does not make any difference. Why don't we just
increase spending? Why do we cut spending at all? Of course, we have to
reduce spending. The American people know the borrowed money and
overspending of the past 2 years have failed to produce what it
promised. Instead, all that has been achieved through this massive
surge in Federal spending, through the stimulus package and other
programs, is a crushing debt burden that weakens our economy and is a
drag on our economy, as expert witnesses have told us. It threatens our
economic future. Alan Simpson, former Republican Senator, and Erskine
Bowles, formerly the Chief of Staff to President Clinton, were
appointed by President Obama to cochair the debt commission. The fiscal
commission reported to us, and jointly they submitted a written
statement that said if the United States fails to act, it faces ``the
most predictable economic crisis in its history.'' This is a real
warning. They said such a crisis could arrive in as soon as 1 or 2
years.
People have been saying: Oh, we are on the wrong track. If we do not
get off it, in 3 or 4 or 5 years, we are going to have a crisis. More
and more people are warning us that crisis is sooner. Mr. Bowles said:
In 1 year, give or take a little bit, we will have a crisis. Mr.
Simpson said: I think within 1 year.
The American people rightly expect their elected leaders to confront
this threat with seriousness and candor. But the President has never
once looked the American people in the eyes and told them the truth
about the financial crisis we face. Has he ever discussed those kinds
of words with the American people, that we face an actual crisis? We
could have a debt problem that hits us very quickly, just like the one
in 2008 that put us in a deep recession. We are in a fragile recovery
now, and we need to keep that recovery going. The last thing we need to
do is have another recession, or some sort of other financial collapse
that puts more people out of work and weakens an already struggling
economy. It is not necessary this occur.
The President and his Budget Director have, instead of being truthful
with us, falsely boasted to the American people that under their budget
we will ``live within our means'' and ``not add more to the debt'' and
that ``we're not going to spend any more money than we're taking in.''
He submitted his 10-year budget to the Congress, and that is what he
says his budget will do. But not one of those statements is true--not
one.
When the budget was announced, Mr. Bowles, whom the President
appointed to head the debt commission, said it is nowhere close to what
we need to be doing to get our house in order. In fact, the
Congressional Budget Office finds this: that our annual deficits never
once fall below $748 billion. I was saying $600 billion before based on
the President's estimates of his budget. Now the Congressional Budget
Office has done an independent analysis of the President's budget, and
they say the lowest single annual deficit, in 10 years, would be $748
billion.
[[Page S1911]]
Is it going down, you ask? Is this budget going to put us living
within our means and live on what we take in? In the outyears, the
deficits out 7, 8, 9, 10 years of the President's budget, they are
going up. In the 10th year, the budget deficit is $1.2 trillion--a
$1,200 billion deficit that year.
You might ask: What do those numbers mean? We spend, this year, about
$3.7 trillion through September 30. We take in $2.2 trillion. This is
why we are on an unsustainable path and we have to get off of it. It is
not a partisan matter; it is a matter of facing reality. We still have
Members of the Senate in denial. We have the majority leader down here
complaining that he might not get money for his cowboy poetry festival
in Nevada. Give me a break. This country is headed on the path of great
danger and we need to turn around.
Imagine the fate a CEO would face if, in the process of asking for
shareholders to buy company stock, he declared, ``We are not adding to
the debt,'' while his accountants were telling him the company's debt
was on a path to double, as our debt is. The President even nominated a
deputy director for OMB, Heather Higginbottom, who has no budget
experience and who attempted to defend these claims before the Budget
Committee last week. I don't know, maybe they couldn't find anybody
with experience who would take the job. The best I can tell, she has
never had a single business course or an economics course, never
managed any kind of organization on budget, ever. She majored, I think,
in political science and campaigned for President Obama and Senator
John Kerry.
We need some seriousness here. We in Congress are not stepping up to
the plate, frankly. We are not taking the kind of decisive action
needed to curb our rising debt. And the majority leader, my good
friend, Senator Reid--which is a tough job, I have to tell my
colleagues; it is a tough job--but now he is saying the problem is
there is a division within the Republican Party. You see, we have these
extremists over here, the new Republicans who got elected the last
election promising to do something about spending and they are out of
touch. They are extremists. There are some good Republicans over here.
They have been here a long time, and we know how to get along and cut
deals and we are going to take care of this thing. You just have to
keep these people under control.
I might remind the leader that every single Republican either voted
for the $61 billion in cuts or called for more cuts. There is no
division in the Republican Party about the need to have reasonable and
significant reductions in the expenditures. There is essentially
unanimous Republican agreement that we ought to cut $61 billion or more
from this year's discretionary budget. By contrast, the majority leader
lost nearly one-fifth of his caucus on his proposal, which was
basically to do nothing--reduce spending by $4 billion. Ten Members or
more defected. They knew that wasn't enough, even under pressure from
the President and from the majority leader. So it is clear where the
momentum lies.
I wish to repeat again, though: This is not and cannot be seen as a
partisan squabble. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve talked to us a
few weeks ago, and he submitted a written statement to the Budget
Committee. This is what Mr. Bernanke said. He talked about the
Congressional Budget Office debt projections. I have made some
reference to those and how dangerous they show our path to be.
This is what Chairman Bernanke said:
The CBO projections, by design, ignore the adverse effects
that such high debt and deficits would likely have on our
economy. But if government debt and deficits were actually to
grow at the pace envisioned in this scenario, the economic
and financial effects would be severe. Diminishing confidence
on the part of investors that deficits will be brought under
control would likely lead to sharply rising interest rates on
government debt and potentially to broader financial turmoil.
Moreover, high rates of government borrowing would both drain
funds away from private capital formation and increase our
foreign indebtedness, with adverse long-run effects on U.S.
output, incomes, and standard of living.
He goes on to say:
It is widely understood that the federal Government is on
an unsustainable fiscal path. Yet, as a nation, we have done
little to address this critical threat to our economy. Doing
nothing will not be an option indefinitely; the longer we
wait to act, the greater the risks and the more wrenching the
inevitable changes to the budget will be. By contrast, the
prompt adoption of a credible program to reduce future
deficits would not only enhance the economic growth and
stability in the long run, but could also yield substantial
near-term benefits in terms of lower long-term interest rates
and increased consumer and business confidence.
This is the head of the Federal Reserve, the man supposedly most
knowledgeable about the economy of the United States of America. We are
not making this up.
We have a proposal from our Democratic majority in the Senate to do
nothing, basically--to do zero, nada--despite this kind of warning.
We are living in a fantasy world if we don't think we can cut $61
billion from this budget. My friend John McMillan, just elected the
director of Agriculture and Industries in Alabama, is facing a critical
crisis in his department. I saw the headline in the paper. He has 200
employees. He is going to have to lay off 60 of them. Cities and
counties are doing this kind of thing all over the country. Do we think
the State of Alabama will cease to exist if that happens? It is sad
that they have that kind of challenge before them. We don't have to do
that much right now, but if we took those kinds of steps--something
significant--we could make a bigger difference than a lot of people
realize in the debt we are facing.
Governor Cuomo in New York and Governor Christie in New Jersey and
Governor Brown in California and others all over the country are making
real, significant alterations in the level of spending, while we worry
about protecting the cowboy poetry festival in Nevada.
Remember this--people have forgotten this. Since President Obama took
office, Congress has increased discretionary spending on our non-
defense Federal programs by 24 percent. We didn't have the money for
that. We never should have increased spending that much. It was a big
error. But we know what they said: Don't worry, we are making
investments in the future. But you have to have money to make
investments. If you don't have money, how can you make investments? All
of this increase was borrowed. We are in huge debt and when we increase
spending, we have to borrow the money to increase spending. Every penny
is borrowed. We did an $800 billion stimulus package. Every penny was
borrowed. We pay $30 billion-plus a year interest on that borrowed
money for as long as I am alive and longer, no doubt. There is no plan
to pay off that debt. I know people are talking and they are working
things out and they said they are going to try to reach a compromise so
we don't have to shut down the government, and I certainly hope that is
true. But I do not believe we need any tax-and-spend compromise. I will
not support that. I don't think the American people will support it,
either. They know we spend too much. They know we have ramped up
spending $800 billion with the stimulus package, that nondefense
discretionary spending has gone up 24 percent in 2 years, and they know
we can reduce Federal spending without this country sinking into the
ocean. That is what they expect us to do. That is what Governors and
mayors are doing, county commissioners are doing, all over my State and
all over America.
We have to recognize that Washington is spending too much--not taxing
too little. How can we ask Americans to pay more in taxes when
Washington is not even willing to cut $61 billion?
I have a proposition for my colleagues who wish to raise taxes before
we consider asking the American people to pay another cent in taxes:
Why don't we first drain every cent of waste from the Federal
bureaucracy? We will never truly dig ourselves out of this crisis and
put this Nation on a real path to prosperity unless we bring our
spending under control. America's strength is measured not by the size
of our government but by the scope of our freedoms and the vigor and
vitality of the American people and their willingness to invest and
work hard for the future. That is what makes us strong. Endless
spending, taxing, and borrowing is a certain path to decline, and we
are on that path today, and we must get out of it.
We know the threat. We know what we need to do. The economy is trying
[[Page S1912]]
to rebound. So let's take some good steps today. Let's pass this $61
billion reduction in spending this fiscal year. It will amount to about
$860 billion over 10 years. It will be a very significant first step.
That is what is before us today--not the other issues. We have to
decide what we are going to do about funding the government between now
and September 30. That is the rest of this fiscal year. Let's take a
firm step on that. Let's begin to look at what we are going to do for
next year's budget and what we are going to do about our surging
entitlement programs that are on an unsustainable course. We can do all
of those things and leave our country healthy and vigorous and
prosperous for the future. I truly believe that is the kind of thing we
need to be doing now.
I am baffled that we don't know why the President is not leading
more. He is not talking directly to the American people about why this
is important. Is it just a political squabble to be ignored, with the
President going to Rio and talking about Libya? Or is it true, as Mr.
Bernanke says, we are on an unsustainable path? Or is it true that Mr.
Erskine Bowles, the President's own director of the fiscal commission,
says that we are facing the most predictable economic crisis in this
country's history, and he said it could happen within 2 years? Are we
making this up?
The American people get it. They say, What is going on in Washington?
You have to get your house in order. That is what this past election
was about. People understand we need some action and some leadership,
but we are not getting it. I truly believe if we could get together and
if we could get a bipartisan effort to look at this $61 billion--we
could disagree on how to reduce that spending; maybe the Republicans
have this idea and the Democrats have this idea--let's work all of that
out. But let's reach an agreement that actually reduces spending by
enough to make a difference. Then the world would say, Wow, now the
Congress is beginning to take some steps. That was a nice, good, strong
first step. Now if they will stay on that path, maybe the United States
is going to get on the road to prosperity again and stay out of this
dangerous debt crisis area we are in today and get on the right path to
prosperity. This country is ready to grow. It is ready to rebound. It
just needs a clear signal from Washington, in my opinion.
America's leaders, those of us in this Congress, have no higher duty,
no greater moral responsibility, than to take all appropriate steps to
protect the good people we serve from the clear and present danger we
face.
It is time to get busy about it, Madam President. I believe if we act
strongly and with clarity the American people will not only support it
but they will be happy with it, and it will make a positive difference
for our country.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________