[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 25, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3333-S3336]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE BUDGET
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for allowing
us to have a few remarks at this time, after the process has been
completed tonight.
The Senate has not fulfilled its responsibility. The United States
Code that we passed, Congress passed, requires that there be a budget.
It requires that Congress commence marking up the budget in the Budget
Committee, as the Presiding Officer knows, by April 1, and a concurrent
resolution be passed by April 15, setting forth what the Congress
authorizes to be spent in the next year.
If anybody attempts to spend above that amount, the Budget Act allows
a point of order to be raised, and it would require 60 votes to go
above that level. So a budget says what we want to spend and makes it
difficult for anybody to spend more. It is what we do in our
households, it is what our cities and counties do, it is what our State
governments do.
I know Senator Manchin, the Presiding Officer, as a Governor, he had
to deal with his tough budget situation. My Governor, Governor Bentley,
just announced he is prorating 15 percent of the discretionary spending
for the rest of the year.
We are not talking about those kinds of cuts this year in Washington.
I was in Estonia, near the Soviet Union on the Baltic Sea, and the
proud Estonians had a larger deficit, larger economic decline than we
did. The Estonians told us that every Cabinet official took a 40-
percent pay cut, every employee took 10 to 20. The health system, one
said: My wife is a doctor. She is very unhappy. But they intend to
complete the recovery in Estonia without adding to the debt at all.
Their debt to GDP is 7 percent.
By September 30 of this year, our debt-to-gross domestic product will
total 100 percent, and according to the Rogoff-Reinhart study, a great
authoritative study that has gained a great deal of applause, when the
debt amounts to 90 percent of GDP, economic growth declines by 1
percent.
A 1-percent decline in GDP--the experts tell us--is the equivalent of
1 million jobs. So we will be in a position where, because of the debt
we have accumulated, the economy will grow 1 percent less and we could
have 1 million less jobs.
We do not know what our economic growth might be. It looks like it
could be less than 2 percent. We are talking about a huge difference in
what our economic growth could be this year. Maybe it will be 3. But if
it is 3, it would have been 4. If it was 4, it would have been 5. If it
is 3, it would be 2 because of this debt.
So these are the circumstances we are dealing with. Every witness has
told us we need to do something about it. The Nation is in a most
serious fix. So there has been a decision made by the leadership of the
Senate, the Democratic leadership of the Senate, not to produce a
budget.
It was interesting, when the President's budget was brought up, every
single Member of the Senate--Republicans and Democrats--voted no. We
could say: Why did they do that? Well, the President's budget deserved
not a single vote. Considering the severe, serious financial condition
we are in, the President's budget was the most irresponsible budget
that has ever been presented to Congress. It is stunningly short of
anything necessary.
Erskine Bowles, the man President Obama appointed to head the fiscal
commission, said the President's budget was nowhere close to where they
will have to go to avoid our fiscal nightmare--nowhere close. But our
colleagues, what have they done? They complained about the Ryan budget.
They vote against their own, and they vote against any other budget.
They vote against the Ryan budget saying it is going to eliminate your
Medicare, and you will not receive your Medicare because of Paul Ryan
and the mean Republicans.
But the Ryan budget made no change in Medicare in the 10 years in the
Ryan plan at all, except canceled the President's health care bill and
saved hundreds of billions of dollars. What it did was to propose in
the future that we develop a new way of administering Medicare that
would save money and make it more responsible to individual needs.
We refused to even move to that legislation, to discuss it, and to
analyze whether it should be done that way or whether it could be done
another way. But nobody denies that this budget, that any budget we
pass, must confront our entitlement programs. Surely, they do not. So
whatever you do, you are attacked by it. Our majority leader, whom I
admire and enjoy working with, was quite frank. He said: It would be
foolish for us to pass a budget. He did not mean it would be foolish
for America. He did not mean it would be foolish for the public
interest. He did not mean it would be foolish in terms of containing
the reckless spending and dangerous path we are on. He meant it would
be foolish politically because he had a plan, and the plan was to
attack the people who had the courage, the gumption, and the hard work
to produce a budget dealing with the long-term fiscal challenges of
America: Paul Ryan and his Budget Committee, wants to attack them,
bring up their budget and vote it down, and not produce anything in
response.
I believe that is an embarrassment to the Senate. It is an utter
failure to meet our statutory obligation. More importantly, it is a
failure to meet our moral obligation. Many have said:
[[Page S3334]]
Well, we need to do something because we are putting debt on our
children and grandchildren. That is absolutely true. But we have been
told by numerous experts, including Mr. Bowles, who chaired the debt
commission, that we could be facing a debt crisis in 2 years, give or
take a little bit. That was his opinion.
His cochairman, Alan Simpson, said it could be 1 year. So we could
have another debt financial crisis that could put us back into a
recession as a result of our fiscal irresponsibility as soon as 2
years, according to Erskine Bowles--accomplished businessman,
successful businessman, President Clinton's Chief of Staff, chosen by
President Obama to head the Commission. That is what he told us in the
Budget Committee just a few weeks ago.
How serious is it? Our highway spending this year is about $40
billion. Last year, this country spent, in interest on our debt, $200-
plus billion, five times the highway bill, just for example, and we
need to do something about our infrastructure and highways in America.
I am very worried about it.
I indicated that, just for example, the highway budget is about $40
billion. The Federal Department of Education is about $70 billion. But
we spent last year in interest payments on the debt that we have
accumulated, over $200 billion.
The President submitted his budget. It was favorably commented on by
Democratic colleagues and represented what appears to be, I guess, the
mainstream Democratic view--although I am pleased to see nobody voted
for it.
But according to the Congressional Budget Office, which has analyzed
the budget the President submitted to us, it would result in an
interest payment, in the 10th year, of $940 billion.
That is an amount of money that exceeds our imagination. It is larger
than the Defense Department budget. It is larger than Medicare. It is
larger than Medicaid. It is the fastest growing item in our entire
budget. And that assumes a slight increase but modest interest rate,
below the 6-percent historical average. So if interest rates were to go
up faster--and that is quite possible--instead of $940 billion, we
could have trillion-dollar-plus interest payments every year, crowding
out the ability of the Education Department, Transportation Department,
NOAA, the EPA, and every other agency in government to get funds. We
will crowd out that spending by placing an annual burden on our people
of $940 billion a year. It is this trend and this path that is
unsustainable. We have been told that.
I just want to repeat what happened just a few moments ago. What
happened? Four measures were brought up by the majority, and they were
brought up with the full knowledge that nothing would happen. There
were several hours of debate. We voted on four tremendously important
items, four budgets for the United States of America, with no real
ability to discuss each one of them in any depth at all. It was a
political exercise. The majority leader said it would be ``foolish''
for us to pass a budget. In other words, it is foolish for the
Democratic majority to commit themselves to any plan for the future of
America. It was an avoidance of responsibility. They would not even
vote for the President's budget because if they did, they would be
responsible for it.
What they did was attack the one group of people who have done the
right thing, the responsible thing, and that is to produce a historic
budget that would basically solve our debt problem--it didn't
overreach--and that is the House budget. It was long term, short term,
and it dealt with entitlements, discretionary spending, and taxes. It
was a thoughtful, important, historic budget. The Chicago Tribune
praised it. The Wall Street Journal praised it. The fiscal commission
chairmen, Bowles and Simpson, praised it for its courage, its
integrity, its lack of gimmicks, and for being honest.
Do you know what they said. They said, again, that anyone who opposes
the Ryan budget or opposes any one of the budgets, if you don't like
it, you should put forth your plan. Has the leadership in the Senate
proposed any plan? In a shocking display of irresponsibility--I don't
have words to describe the degree of irresponsibility that I think has
been shown here tonight--they have said: We are not going to produce
anything. We are just going to attack what you have done.
Many of our colleagues have said we have to deal with entitlements
and confront the surging debt caused thereby; that Medicare and Social
Security are in danger and they could go belly-up. We have to change
what we are doing. The House wrestled with that. It wasn't within that
10-year window. Everybody who is 55 and above and everybody who is on
Medicare today would have no change--none. Yet we have people going
around telling our seniors that this Ryan House budget would change
their Social Security and they would not get it. In fact, it would save
the Social Security Program, put it on a sound basis, and guarantee
that people now receiving it and people over 55 who are soon to be
receiving it would have no change whatsoever. In fact, in some ways, it
would strengthen it for them. This is not correct.
Well, do we have a better plan? What about the Becerra rule? I
suppose that is Congressman Xavier Becerra they named that for, a
Democratic Congressman from Los Angeles. Did they produce anything they
think is better? Do they have any plans to change the debt course we
are on? Zero, nada.
I really believe this is not the responsible way to deal with the
challenges this country faces. I am deeply disappointed. The matter is
not going away. As ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, I feel a
great sense of responsibility to defend the legally required processes
of a Budget Act. What kind of ranking member or member of the Budget
Committee would I be if I sat by and acknowledged and accepted these
four votes as somehow disposing of the situation?
What should happen? What should have happened is that by April 1, the
chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, with whom I enjoyed
working this year, should have produced a chairman's mark, and it
should have gone to the Budget Committee, and we would have had an
opportunity to debate and vote on that and discuss all the issues
relevant to getting our country on a fine, sound, fiscal path. But I
think the majority leader decided that was not a good path.
Senator Conrad, if you read the newspapers, apparently brought up his
budget, his proposal to the Democratic conference, and it received a
chilly reception, according to the newspapers. Senator Conrad has said
repeatedly that he knows we are on an unsustainable path. He said once
that we are heading to the wall at warp speed. We have to change, he
said, because we are on an unsustainable path. But they thought, I
suppose, he was too frugal, and so apparently, according to the papers,
he came back the next week with a budget that Senator Sanders and some
of the others apparently blessed. We thought we were going to have a
markup, maybe, and he would bring that forward. They said publicly: We
have a budget, and we have basically agreed on a budget, but we are
just not bringing it forward. But it should have been brought forward
to committee, marked up, passed out of committee, and brought to the
floor.
It won't pass the committee, they say. What do you mean? We have to
pass a budget. The Budget Act provides that it can't be filibustered.
It allows the budget to be passed with a simple majority. The Democrats
have a majority in the committee. They can pass a budget just like they
like it. Whatever they like, they could vote to pass it. Why not? Well,
I think it is because they thought it would be foolish politically for
them to commit themselves to any plan that dealt with taxes, with
spending, with the debt. They didn't want to commit themselves. They
decided that the smart thing to do would be to attack the foolish
Republicans, who actually had the responsibility and the integrity and
the sense of duty to lay out a plan for this country's financial
future.
Make no mistake about it, a budget is a serious matter. It sets forth
your vision for America, how big you would like the government to be,
how much tax you want to impose, how much spending you want to incur
and how much debt you would like to incur, and it sets it forth before
the whole world. We were waiting to see--the House had done their
duty--what will the Senate do? Nothing.
I don't think that is responsible. I don't believe it is acceptable.
I don't accept it. I am going to continue to resist this kind of no-
action policy.
[[Page S3335]]
I hope the American people will register their complaints and
concerns with their Senators and demand that this Senate do its duty to
set forth a budget that can help contain spending in America and put us
on a path to financial stability and allow our economy to begin to grow
at a robust rate because I truly believe the debt and the interest we
pay is weakening our economy, as the expert economists have told us.
Mr. President, we can't quit now. We are not going to quit now. We
are going to keep pushing for the kind of budget that will allow us to
put this country on a sound path. I am deeply disappointed that we have
totally shortcut the entire process. We have entirely avoided the
responsibility to cast a serious vote on a budget, bring one up where
we have the opportunity to debate and amend it and calculate out and
study and make sure there are no gimmicks in there and hidden
manipulations that hide the way the numbers appear. We have seen that
too often. In fact, if the American people knew the extent to which
this Congress, year after year, has manipulated the numbers to hide the
serious, irresponsible spending programs we are executing, they would
be more angry with us than they are, and 70 percent of Americans think
this country is on the wrong track. Fundamentally, I believe that is
based on the fact that they think we are spending recklessly, running
up too much debt, and endangering the future health and welfare of
generations to come.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am submitting my views today
about the need to enact a fiscally responsible federal budget for
fiscal year 2012.
The April 15 statutory deadline for Congress to complete its annual
budget resolution was over a month ago. An annual budget resolution is
essential for controlling spending, for guiding the annual
appropriations process, and for setting national spending priorities.
For the past 2 years, the Senate has failed to meet this critical
deadline. During that time, the U.S. has borrowed an additional $3.2
trillion--more than $100 billion a month until the $14.29 trillion debt
ceiling was reached on May 16.
For the first 7 months of the 2011 fiscal year, the budget deficit
was a record $871 billion--$71 billion higher than it was at the same
point in fiscal year 2010. During the same period, income tax revenues
increased by $110 billion, or 9.1 percent.
The problem isn't that Americans are taxed too little; Federal
deficits are out-of-control because government is spending too much.
Not passing a budget, not bringing forward even a budget proposal,
takes us down a path that ends in Social Security and Medicare
bankruptcy, harms our national security, and passes the bill for
current fiscal irresponsibility onto our children and grandchildren.
We are just 4\1/2\ months from the beginning of fiscal year 2012.
Unless we pass a budget and approve the individual spending measures
that are required to fund government operations, we will return to
stopgap continuing resolutions and to recurring threat of government
shutdowns.
Yesterday, I joined all 46 of my Republican colleagues in a letter to
the Senate majority leader that urges him to initiate the steps that
must be taken for the Senate to debate, vote, and produce a responsible
Federal budget for the next fiscal year.
As the majority leader knows, the procedural votes he has scheduled
will not advance us toward that goal. These votes are intended only to
score political points.
Today I will be in Dallas to attend my daughter's graduation from
lower school to middle school. This will prevent me from being present
for votes on the motions to proceed on four budget proposals. My
absence for these procedural votes will not affect the outcomes. But I
wanted to make known my position in advance of these votes.
A serious attempt to move a fiscal year 2012 budget forward would be
a bipartisan effort that would enable us to debate, amend, and move
forward a plan for long-term deficit reduction, while funding essential
government programs and services. I look forward to a real debate, open
amendments, and a vote on a serious budget that will dramatically bring
down the outstanding debt our country has accumulated. Unfortunately,
that opportunity is not going to be presented to the Senate today.
I would vote in favor of the motions to proceed on the three
Republican-originated budget proposals before the Senate: the so-called
Ryan budget that has been approved by the House of Representatives, as
well as alternative plans put forward by Senator Toomey and Senator
Paul.
Each of these proposals would put the Federal Government on a
multiyear glide path to a balanced Federal budget. Each proposal would
go about achieving this crucial goal by reducing Federal spending, not
by raising taxes, and could be a constructive starting point for Senate
debate and consideration of amendments. I do not agree with parts of
each proposal. But if we had an open amendment process we could attempt
to improve each proposal, while preserving the best parts.
I could not vote for the motion to proceed to consideration of the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget. Unlike the Republican proposals,
the President's fiscal year 2012 budget proposes to add $8.7 trillion
in new spending and $1.26 trillion in net new taxes over the next
decade, while only projecting $1.1 trillion in savings over 10 years.
Rather than balancing the Federal budget, the President's budget plan
would add several trillion dollars more to the national debt. That
would be a catastrophe by any standard. But the reality of the
President's budget would be much worse. In the President's budget a
$1.1 trillion deficit was projected for the current fiscal year. But we
are instead headed for a $1.4 trillion shortfall.
The President subsequently signaled understanding that his proposed
budget falls short by releasing a new deficit reduction proposal on
April 13. The President's new plan targets $4 trillion in deficit
reduction in 12 years--through tax increases and a new ``debt
failsafe'' trigger that would include cuts to spending through the tax
code--a new euphemism for tax increases.
It is our responsibility to the country to act on establishing
constraints on federal spending and producing a budget blueprint. My
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen not to prepare
nor advance a fiscal year 2012 budget resolution forward, except to say
repeatedly that higher taxes are essential. In my estimation, raising
taxes in a struggling economy will stifle job creation and further
delay recovery from a devastating, long-lasting recession.
We must make bold cuts in spending where we can. We should also take
steps to assure the long-term safety and soundness of Social Security
and Medicare, for current retirees and for today's workers who will
need to depend on benefits later. We must also carefully prioritize
investment and research in areas of strategic national importance.
Just as American families and small businesses across the Nation set
their spending priorities so Congress is expected to do the same. As a
nation, we have reached a serious, fiscal crisis. It is time to start
making the necessary and difficult decisions for the future of our
country.
H. Con. Res. 34
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, for me, Medicare is not a political talking
point. My parents immigrated to the United States in the late 1950s.
They worked hard for over 40 years to provide their children the chance
to do all the things they themselves could not. But they never made
much money. As a result, they retired with precious little in savings.
Medicare was and is the only way they could access health care.
When my father got sick, Medicare paid for his numerous hospital
stays. And as he reached the end of life, Medicare allowed him to die
with dignity by paying for his hospice care.
Like most 80-year-olds my mother has several age-related ailments.
Without the access to quality health care that Medicare pays for, I
cannot imagine what life would be like for her.
America needs Medicare. We need it to continue without any benefit
reductions for those like my mother currently in the system. And we
need it to survive for my generation and my children's generation.
But Medicare is going bankrupt. Anyone who says it is not is simply
[[Page S3336]]
lying. And anyone who is in favor of doing nothing to deal with this
fact is in favor of bankrupting it.
Medicare will go broke in as little as 9 years. No one likes this
news, but it is the undeniable truth. And the sooner we begin to deal
with it, the better off we are all going to be.
My goals are simple. First, I will not support any plan that changes
Medicare for people like my mother who are currently on the plan. We
cannot ask seniors to go out and get a job to pay for their health
care.
Second, any solution must solve the problem. We need to save
Medicare, not simply delay its bankruptcy.
And third, any solution cannot hurt economic growth. At a time of
high unemployment, Americans cannot afford to pay more taxes.
I will support any serious plan that accomplishes these three things.
It does not matter to me if it comes from a Democrat or a Republican.
Saving Medicare is more important than partisan politics.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has offered a plan. I
support H. Con. Res. 34 because, right now, it is the only plan out
there that helps save Medicare.
Democrats oppose this plan. Fine. But, if they have a better way to
save Medicare, what are they waiting for to show us? What is their plan
to save Medicare? Either show us how Medicare survives without any
changes or show us what changes you propose we make. Anyone who
supports doing nothing on Medicare is a supporter of bankrupting
Medicare.
Where is the House Democrat plan to save Medicare?
Where is the Senate Democrat plan to save Medicare?
Where is President Obama's plan to save Medicare?
They have no plan to save Medicare, and they do not plan to offer
one. They have decided that winning their next election is more
important than saving Medicare for my mother and retirees like her.
I have been in the Senate just long enough to be disgusted by the
reality that Washington has too many people who think their personal
political careers are more important than our country's future.
Maybe the Democrats' strategy to use Medicare as a political weapon
will work. Maybe not offering their own plan to save Medicare will help
them win seats in Congress and reelect the President. Maybe it is great
for the Democrat Party.
But it is terrible for people like my mother, and it is terrible for
America.
Medicare is going bankrupt. If something does not happen soon, in
just a few years whoever is in charge in Washington will have to go to
people like my mother and tell them we can no longer afford to continue
providing her with the same Medicare she is used to.
We have always had intense partisan politics in America. But
throughout our history, on issues of generational importance, our
leaders have agreed to put aside politics for the sake of our country.
Shouldn't saving Medicare be that kind of issue?
I am ready to work with anyone in Washington who is serious about
saving Medicare. I am open to any serious solutions they have.
We are running out of time to save Medicare for our parents and
secure it for our children. If we fail, history will never forgive us.
S. Con. Res. 20
Mr. President, I came here to support budgets that make tough
spending reductions, save our safety net programs, and preserve our
commitment to protecting Americans at home and abroad. In the midst of
this fiscal crisis, there should be no sacred cows in the Federal
budget, but we also can't walk away from our commitments abroad.
Especially in this time of great upheaval around the world, and as
America's enemies dream of a Greece-like day of reckoning that will
leave us no choice but to abandon our allies around the world, I simply
cannot support a budget that would make the world a less safe place
because the United States' role in it is diminished.
____________________