[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6349-S6350]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          FISCAL 2014 SPENDING

  Mr. FLAKE. I also rise today to speak about the need for continued 
attention to our Nation's fiscal health and to encourage my colleagues 
to seize the opportunity to take the necessary steps to rein in our 
out-of-control spending. As so often happens this time of year, talk 
has turned to the need for a continuing resolution for at least part of 
the next year, and I urge my colleagues to join me in pushing for a CR 
that respects the commitments we have already made.
  As we all know, the President and the Congress approved the Budget 
Control Act in 2011, putting in place annual spending caps and 
establishing a deficit reduction commission to find additional savings 
and solutions to ensure the solvency of our entitlement programs. With 
the failure of that commission, a sequester that forced $1.2 trillion 
in automatic spending reductions was put in place. In the absence of an 
agreement to replace them, the caps and sequester guarantee at least $2 
trillion in deficit reduction.
  Seventy-four Members of the Senate believed these enforcement 
measures were needed to put us on the right fiscal track. The President 
signed the Budget Control Act into law, saying that, ``It's an 
important first step to ensuring that, as a Nation, we live within our 
means.'' Yet there are continuing conversations about passing a short-
term continuing resolution that would fund the government at a level 
above that established by the Budget Control Act for next year.
  I should have to remind no one that under the Budget Control Act, 
passing a continuing resolution at anything higher than the $967 
billion limit would trigger another statutory, across-the-board 
sequester cut in January that would bring spending down to the $967 
billion level for the next fiscal year of 2014.
  I can see why there are those who would like to take such action. 
Passing a CR at a higher-than-BCA-appropriate level would create yet 
another fiscal cliff, with hopes, I am sure, of causing enough pressure 
to finally do away with the sequester. That is what some would like. 
However, such a scenario does little to add pressure to address the 
sequester, provides the pretense that the BCA levels don't mean 
anything if even for a short while, and it further complicates agencies 
implementing what are sure to be the required cuts.
  Make no mistake, I understand the sequester process is a blunt 
instrument and not a preferred method of fiscal restraint. However, it 
was put in place because Congress failed to do what is needed to rein 
in reckless spending.
  I also understand the difficult position it puts agencies in, 
particularly the Department of Defense. I am open to allowing 
reasonable flexibility and to replacing the sequester, albeit with 
changes to mandatory spending and entitlements, and not hikes in taxes. 
But that deal, much like the supercommittee's success, has been 
elusive, and to seek to pass a CR that doesn't reflect the reality of 
the post-BCA world raises itself a set of problems. However, such a 
scenario does little to add pressure to address the sequester, as I 
mentioned. It simply would make it more difficult for agencies to 
address their needs and to bring down their own spending.
  Certainly, passing any budget bill for next year at levels in excess 
of those that are outlined in the Budget Control Act breaks any promise 
to ``live within our means.''

[[Page S6350]]

  In addition, passing a short-term CR that will allow agencies to 
spend money as if the sequester isn't imminent early next year only 
complicates their situation. This would force agencies to squeeze all 
the necessary spending reductions in just over 9 months instead of an 
entire year. We can imagine the burdens that puts on agencies, 
particularly the Department of Defense, with unique procurement 
requirements.
  A less charitable view of why anyone would seek to ignore, even for a 
short time, the realities of the BCA would be that they might think 
deficits have fallen and attention to our fiscal state is no longer 
needed. In fact, the President recently told an audience that, ``We 
don't have an urgent deficit crisis. The only crisis we have is one 
that is manufactured in Washington.''
  I beg to differ. Our fiscal problems aren't solved. In fact, we are 
still on track to add $753 billion to our national debt in 2013. There 
is no doubt this is an improvement from past years. Yet the trillion-
dollar deficits of the past 4 years are hardly appropriate benchmarks 
for today. Even at $753 billion, this year's deficit is larger than any 
of those under any previous administration.
  Meanwhile, our entitlement programs are still on track to be 
insolvent, with Social Security Disability set to go broke by 2016, 
Medicare by 2026, and Social Security by 2033. This is simply not the 
time to backpedal, by any means, on the agreement we made in 2011.
  Congress and the President agree that the Budget Control Act is the 
first step needed toward budget deficit reduction. We must complete the 
first stride to set our Nation on the right course and prove to the 
public we can address the even larger looming challenges we face, such 
as the solvency of our entitlement programs.
  There is no doubt this is going to be a difficult job in the days to 
come, and we must address it. I urge my colleagues to keep their 
promise and push for appropriations bills that responsibly respect the 
spending limits outlined in the Budget Control Act. To that aim, I 
invite my colleagues to join me in sending a letter to the majority 
leader asking him to bring to the Senate floor a fiscal year 2014 
spending bill that abides by the $967 billion discretionary limit that 
is required by law.
  Let us continue the progress that has been made so far and keep our 
promise to fight for a more sound fiscal future.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________