[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 142 (Friday, October 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7415-S7416]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE DEBT INCREASE
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the Republican Senators met with
President Obama earlier today and discussed many of the financial
issues facing America and the difficulties we are having in achieving
an agreement that puts us on a sound financial path. There surely are
actions we can take together to improve our situation. I believe there
was some progress made, and there are some avenues for progress that
could be opened in the hours to come. I hope we can do that.
But now it is well to recognize that our Medicare and Medicaid
programs are surging in costs, and--as the President rightly noted to
us at our meeting earlier today and has done so for a number of years--
that government health care costs are the biggest drivers of our debt.
In other words, it is increasing at a faster rate than other programs,
and we project it will continue to increase at those rates.
I think that is true. It is true. We have a huge challenge there. But
importantly to this whole discussion, I recall during a formal address
to a joint session of Congress in September 2009, the President
promoted his Affordable Care Act and stated that he would help fix this
problem of growing costs of health care and then flatly and
unequivocally promised, ``I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to
our deficits either now or any time in the future, period.'' That is
astoundingly inaccurate, and we have to know this. We are voting and
wrestling on what to do about our health care bill and other spending
programs. But one thing that has been overlooked is this promise that
the health care bill--the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare--is not paid
for as it was promised, and it is astoundingly over budget.
Let me talk for a few minutes about this issue and its importance. As
we work together to try to reach a compromise, we have to understand
that fact. As we work to deal with some of our long-term financial
challenges, we need to focus on that matter.
Indeed, it appears, according to the Government Accountability
Office, that over the long-term accounting period used to evaluate the
unfunded liabilities of the United States, that the Affordable Care Act
will add $6.2 trillion to the unfunded liabilities of America. That
does not count the interest on that over this long period of time which
may well double that figure. It puts it almost equal to the liability
of Social Security--and maybe even more. So this is a big deal.
I want to share with my colleagues some thoughts as good faith
negotiations are going on by Members. Republicans and Democrats are
talking, the White House staff people are talking, and House Members
and the Speaker are talking. There are some principles they need to be
aware of as we go forward. I have a budget warning, and will make this
point: Trust fund improvements--Social Security and Medicare
primarily--are produced by savings or increased revenues in these
programs. A number of ideas have been floated that could do that, and
they need to be done. But those savings through revenue or new cutting
of expenses cannot be used to justify or pay for breaking Budget
Control Act caps, and that is very important.
It is essential in these hours of financial debate that all Members
of Congress and the American people understand that the savings gained
from much-needed reforms of our financially unsound Social Security and
Medicare trust funds can only be used to strengthen those funds and not
be used simultaneously to support spending for a new program, such as
the Affordable Care Act. We can't use the money twice.
Our vital Social Security and Medicare programs are not solvent at
this time. We know they are going into deficit right now. Our revenues
will increase for those programs or costs to those programs will be
brought down--as many ideas are being floated, and indeed, a number of
them are in the President's budget and have some merit--and the
resulting funds can only be spent once. The Budget Control Act
restricts discretionary spending. It says: We are not going to increase
spending over a certain rate. We are going to reduce the rate of
increase in government spending.
The Budget Control Act is in the law. It was negotiated by the
President, Senator Reid--the majority leader here--the Speaker, and
Senator McConnell, and they agreed on certain limits on spending over
the next 10 years. At that time we were projected to increase spending
over 10 years by $10 trillion. If it was flat spending, we would spend
$37 trillion; under projected growth it would go to $47 trillion.
Under the Budget Control Act we said: OK, we are going to cut
spending. It really wasn't a cut in spending. But we would reduce the
growth of spending from $10 trillion to $8 trillion, and that is why we
are hearing so much today.
In the 2 years-plus since that agreement, Congress--except for a few
budget gimmicks that my staff members bring up--has largely stuck to
those limits. The President and the Democratic Senate have openly and
directly opposed those limits. The President--6 months after signing
the Budget Control Act--submitted a budget to this Senate that would
increase spending $1 trillion over the limits agreed to in the Budget
Control Act. Can you imagine that? There was a bipartisan meeting. As
we worked on the debt ceiling to raise the debt ceiling $2 trillion, we
agreed that over 10 years we would cut spending by $2.1 trillion.
Six months later, the President submits a budget to the Senate and to
the House that calls for spending $1 trillion over that amount. So I
think that was a breach--a serious act of the President to move away
from the promises he had made and the act he signed into law.
To be more specific about it, one of the proposals in the President's
budget that received a lot of discussion is an alteration of the way we
calculate the inflation index for Social Security. It has been referred
to as chained CPI. It is projected to save a certain amount of money--
maybe $128 billion or maybe more. Let's just say it is going to save
$100 billion--chained CPI--and it would, in fact, increase the revenue
into Social Security, and it would reduce the amount of money that is
paid out of Social Security. It would save, let's say, $100 billion. So
this would strengthen Social Security, there is no doubt about that. It
would strengthen Social Security because the Social Security
liabilities are going down and the revenue is going up.
What I wish to say to our colleagues as they wrestle with how to
bring our numbers into better balance is that those savings cannot
benefit Social Security and simultaneously justify increased Treasury
spending over the Budget Control Act levels.
We can't use the money twice. This is so basic. We are talking about
hundreds of billions of dollars.
CBO, our Congressional Budget Office, has analyzed this kind of
maneuver, and they have clearly affirmed that even though the budget
score over 10 years, using the unified budget accounting methods, would
suggest otherwise, we cannot spend the money in both places.
So if we know how to ask a question of CBO, over the 10-year budget
window, it can give the appearance that we have this money because it
creates more money coming into the government that we can spend over
here. But the money is dedicated to Social Security. It is Social
Security money. It can't be spent twice. If it is going to strengthen
Social Security, it can't be spent over here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 10 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 5
additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Presiding Officer most graciously.
CBO has flatly called this in a letter, at my request, double-
counting. Can
[[Page S7416]]
my colleagues imagine the Congressional Budget Office saying that the
U.S. Congress is double-counting? Actually, in that case, in dealing
with the Affordable Care Act, $500 billion of money extracted out of
Medicare was being used to claim it would pay for the Affordable Care
Act when it was Medicare's money.
So I am talking at this point and just sharing an example from Social
Security and the chained CPI, but the principles are the same because
both are trust funds. So it is double-counting.
In fact, any Social Security or Medicare trust fund savings so
produced are legally assets of the trust fund, and debt instruments of
the U.S. Treasury are issued and interest paid from the U.S. Treasury
to Social Security and to the Medicare trust funds on the monies that
are borrowed in that way. If the savings, as is likely, do not result
in a trust fund surplus, then there is really no surplus that they can
borrow. It simply tends to show more income to the U.S. Treasury--
falsely showing that because, again, the money is committed off-budget
to Social Security.
The critical fact is that all of those moneys are already obligated
to Social Security and Medicare and will be needed by those programs,
and more money, actually, is going to be needed by those programs to
meet the future obligations of those trust funds, which are insolvent.
They don't have enough money coming in to pay the obligations they will
be required to pay in the years to come.
So the scope of this abuse of our accounting system is truly enormous
and threatens our Nation's very financial future. For example, it has
allowed the President to falsely assert that the Affordable Care Act
would not add one dime to the debt when, absent double-counting, the
act would increase our debt by over $500 billion over the next 10
years--$500 billion. It is going to adversely impact the financial
condition of America.
The same accounting manipulations enabled many supporters of the Gang
of 8 immigration bill to assert that their legislation was paid for.
They were going to spend all of this money and they were going to make
us safe from illegal immigration and it was all paid for--every dime of
it--and wouldn't add to the debt. Do my colleagues know how they did
that? Well, they were going to give Social Security cards to millions--
11 million or however many would come forward--and they would pay
Social Security, and they would have more Social Security money coming
into the U.S. Treasury, and therefore that would pay for the extra
border patrol and other expenses they said they have to spend money on.
But I ask my colleagues to think about it. The money paid by the
people who have been given legal status, the Social Security they have
paid for is their money. It is their money. They are going to draw out
every penny of it when they get older. We can't say it is available to
pay another expense today. If we do, it is not going to be there, to
pay for their Social Security when they retire. How simple is this?
This was the message here on the floor. They steadfastly insisted that
the bill was paid for, double-counting Social Security money.
So we have to get straight about this, I have to say. Legislation
must be adopted to stop this double-counting. It is open to abuse and
manipulation and has been done, really, by both parties in the past but
not as much as we have seen lately. It is enabling the Nation's
dangerous financial trajectory.
Finally, as we work to end the Nation's financial impasse, another
warning is needed. All should understand that consent to passage of a
continuing resolution or debt ceiling bill cannot be achieved until we
have sufficient time to have a complete CBO score of it so we know what
kind of maneuvers are being used in the bill. So I am going to object.
We are not going to wake up one day and say we have to run to the floor
and pass a bill with 30 minutes' notice or 3 hours' notice. That would
be a mistake.
Madam President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
____________________