[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 181 (Thursday, November 15, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7031-S7034]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             BUDGET REFORM

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, earlier this year, Congress created a 
bipartisan committee--eight Republicans, eight Democrats, half from the 
House, half from the Senate. Their mission was to reform the budget 
process. It was an acknowledgement that our debt is climbing, and there 
is no structure in place to even address that debt, and any time our 
debt is addressed, it seems to be somewhat haphazard or accidental or 
some ad hoc committee is formed to go after debt every 10 years or so. 
This is spiraling, and we need to have something done, and it needs to 
be built into the structure.
  Starting in April, these 16 Members of Congress started to meet, with 
these instructions: ``to significantly reform the budget and 
appropriations process''--significantly reform the process. The idea 
was simple. We are getting a bad budget product; we probably need to 
look at the budget process and be able to find out what is happening 
with the process.
  You see, this process that we have was started in 1974. Right after 
Watergate, Congress created this new process with a budget, with a 
President's budget, with authorizing bills, with appropriating bills, 
and they would all work together for great transparency. It was a great 
plan on paper, but since 1974, it has worked only four times--four 
times.
  Year after year, Americans keep saying the same thing: Why isn't the 
budget working again? Why is everything climbing? And every year, 
Congress says the same thing: We will fix it next year, next year, next 
year, next year. At some point, we have to admit it is a bad process, 
and we are not going to get a better product out of it. We have

[[Page S7032]]

to fix that process, so we started meeting.
  Today, we had our first set of votes on how we are going to 
significantly reform the budget process. We started meeting at about 
10:30 this morning, and after 15 amendments and debate, the hearing was 
suspended at lunch for a week because a few of the Members wanted to 
fly home early for Thanksgiving, so now we will have to finish that 
work next week. It signaled me again that we don't seem to be serious 
in this body about dealing with debt and deficits, that even the groups 
selected to reform the process couldn't finish debate without breaking 
early for Thanksgiving.
  So far, the only agreements to do significant reform--remember, that 
is the mandate; the only agreements that have been set so far have been 
to do budgets every 2 years rather than every year but still keep 
reconciliation and appropriations every year, change the membership of 
the Senate Budget Committee, and then to add a new, optional, 
bipartisan budget pathway in case some future Congress has lightning 
strike and they want to be able to try it. Those are the only 
agreements we have had so far. I don't know if that sounds like 
significant budget reform to you, but it doesn't to me. That sounds 
like just shifting things around.
  For months we have researched the history of the budget process. We 
have identified different options that are out there. We have tried to 
figure out how we have gotten into this unworkable spot of budget 
deficits that we are in and how to fix it. For months we have worked on 
this. Then, as we got to this point, suddenly everyone started backing 
up to the status quo and saying: We will just try harder again.
  It will not work just to try harder. The process has to change.
  You see, we met with the leadership of the Congressional Budget 
Office and asked some very blunt questions about our debt and deficit 
that Americans inherently know the answer to. They can just feel it. We 
asked for simple, straightforward numbers. The Congressional Budget 
Office reported back to us that if we want to get back to the historic 
levels of debt and deficit that we have had for the past 50 years, if 
we want to get just to that level, we will have to start cutting or 
taxing $630 billion every year, starting in 2019, just to get back to 
the historic levels we have been at. If we want to stay just at this 
level of debt to GDP, just remain in this position that we are in right 
now of overwhelming debt, we will have to cut or tax an additional $400 
billion every single year just to tread water. The reason for that is 
our interest rates are continuing to go up, and on $21 trillion in 
total debt right now, as our interest rates tick back up, we will soon 
be approaching $1 trillion in interest payments each year. That is more 
than all of our discretionary spending combined.
  People ask the question: Why is the debt increasing suddenly? They 
look at things like the tax bill and ask: Is that the tax bill? No, it 
is not the tax bill from last year. In fact, after the tax bill from 
last year and the tax changes that were made for this year, there is 
actually more revenue coming into the Federal Treasury this year, after 
the tax changes, than there were last year. Let me run that by you 
again. Everyone seems to want to blame the tax bill for the increasing 
debt and deficit. There is more revenue coming into the Treasury this 
year than last year, even after the tax cuts, because the tax cuts 
spurred economic activity. More people have jobs, more people are 
paying taxes, more people are making money, so they are paying 
additional taxes. So even with the cut, more revenue is coming in. It 
is not about the tax cut; it is about skyrocketing interest on a $21 
trillion debt, and there is nothing we can do about that other than 
begin to address it seriously.
  It has been predictable. CBO has seen it for years, and it is here. 
The simple mandate of the Budget Reform Committee was to bring out a 
significant reform in the process so that we can address this together, 
but so far this has been one of the most frustrating processes that I 
have had in my short time here in the Senate because most don't want to 
solve it because the decisions will be hard.
  Let me lay out some of the options I think do fix this. What are some 
of the hard choices? The first thing I have heard over and over again 
in this budget reform process is that we need to get to a bipartisan 
process. I agree. Republicans and Democrats alike are going to have to 
look at the debt and deficit and say: We have to be able to work 
together. There seem to be all of these different gimmicks for how we 
are going to try to work together when we are avoiding the one simple 
way. There is one simple way to make sure we do things in a bipartisan 
manner; it is called passing the law.
  Right now, the budget, as it is done every year, is not law. The 
Senate writes a budget, the House writes a budget, neither of them are 
actually passed as law.
  The President never signs them. The President creates a budget, the 
House creates a budget, the Senate creates a budget, and then everyone 
kind of debates for a year, and then we get to appropriations and fight 
over appropriations at the end of the year because those are actually 
law.
  Well, here is the simple solution. If you want to avoid government 
shutdowns, if you want to end all of the end-of-the-year fighting, if 
you want to make budgeting an actually bipartisan process, there is a 
simple solution: Make the budget the law. I know that may sound overly 
simplistic to people who are outside of this Senate body, and many 
people may think the budget is already a law, but it is not. It is not 
a law, because without a law, you can create partisan documents and 
debate it and hash it around for a full year and then go fight at the 
very end of the year before the government shutdown happens, when there 
is lots of pressure.
  The simple way to resolve this at the beginning is to make the fight 
about the budget at the beginning of the year--long before there is a 
discussion of government shutdowns. Make the budget itself a law. Push 
the House and the Senate and the White House to sit down early in the 
year--before May 31--resolve how we are going to spend, what we are 
going to do, what is the plan, what are we going to save, and then pass 
it as a law. When that happens, then all of the work can happen after 
that. Then you do all of the appropriations bills. Then you talk about 
what you are going to save. Then you fight through all the details of 
it. But you have established the big deal that takes away the fight at 
the end and moves the fight to the beginning. But, for some reason, 
most everyone on this committee is fighting with the one simple, 
obvious answer: Make the budget a law instead of a partisan political 
document every year. That has not worked.
  Let's fight it out early. We are going to have budget fights. We have 
disagreements in this body. Fine, let's have our disagreements, but 
let's have them early rather than holding the entire country hostage at 
the end of the year right as we approach a government shutdown. Let's 
lay out in the budget debt-to-GDP targets. Then we look at the gross 
domestic product--that is GDP. What do we produce in total as a 
country? What is the total amount of debt we can handle as a country?
  Let's create a plan and then, throughout the course of the year, 
actually execute that plan. That is what every family and what every 
business does. They look at the revenue that is coming in. If they have 
debt, such as their mortgage or cars, they plan and allot for that. We 
don't. The budget is a political document, and then we make up spending 
as we go through the year without a significant plan. Let's make the 
budget a law, create our debt-to-GDP targets in it, and then execute 
those throughout the course of the year.
  Most Americans have heard something about appropriations bills. They 
have heard that on some news report or something. The 1921 Budget and 
Accounting Act requires that we do a certain number of appropriations 
bills. Right now, 12 bills are required. It breaks up the major parts 
of government spending into 12 little spots.
  Basically, we have 12 different bills set aside for spending. We 
never have a single bill set aside for saving. Let me run that past my 
colleagues again. There is no plan for a bill that is set aside for 
savings. So one of the things I have recommended, in addition to making 
the budget a law to force everyone to actually have the fight early 
rather than late, is to add a 13th bill, to do our 12 appropriations 
bills, and

[[Page S7033]]

the 13th bill will be a bill that is set aside every session of 
Congress that is focused on what we are going to save, forcing Congress 
every session to have to stop and have the debate. How are we going to 
save money? What are we going to do? Each Congress can decide how much 
they want to save, but every Congress has to work a little bit on this.
  Currently, every time we fight debt--it may be once a decade that we 
have a big meeting on debt. We are never going to get ahold of $21 
trillion trying to fight it once a decade; we are going to have to do 
it little by little by little and chip it away.
  This Congress, just like the last Congress, just like the one before, 
didn't do significant work on debt reduction because there was no 
deadline and the work is hard. If I know anything about this Congress 
from the short time I have been here, it is that it will not do 
anything until it has to. So if we created in law a requirement that 
every session of Congress, there has to be this what I call the 13th 
bill--this bill that is designed to say that Congress has to debate how 
much they are going to save and where they are going to save--it would 
at least force that moment where we have to resolve things.
  There has been no dialogue so far on how we really reform the debt 
limit. The debt limit is only an American invention. It was designed to 
control our spending and control our debt, but I can assure you it has 
not worked since 78 times we have raised the debt limit. The debt limit 
has become a debt cliff and a big fight rather than something that 
actually controls our spending.
  If we would put in place something to actually cause Congress to have 
a vote on debt, I would be glad to deal with the debt limit--it is 
drama every time--and substitute it for something that is really going 
to reduce our debt burden. But that is not the discussion. The 
discussion in the committee is not about trying to actively reduce our 
debt or to put into a plan a way to reduce our debt; it is just, what 
can we do to take out the debt ceiling vote entirely because it is 
tricky. That doesn't help us. That is not significant reform, just 
removing something because it is tricky. Significant reform on our 
budget process is when we replace it with something that is effective.
  Every year, the President of the United States since 1921 has 
submitted something called the President's budget. Millions of dollars 
are spent compiling this big, giant document that no one reads. It 
becomes a big political document. Every single President has put one 
out every year since 1921, and not a single one of them has ever 
passed--not one--but lots of time and attention is spent on the 
``President's budget''.
  There is a simpler way to do this. Have the President turn over their 
priorities, turn over the agency issues that they see on spending. It 
is perfectly acceptable for the President to do that. But don't create 
this big pomp-and-circumstance, expensive process of having this giant 
President's budget that really means nothing.
  How about shifting our budgeting and our whole process to the 
calendar year rather than the fiscal year? Many Americans don't know 
that Congress runs from October 1 until September 30. Guess what. It is 
the middle of November right now. Our appropriations are not done for 
this year. They are not done for last year. We have carried them over 
on something called a continuing resolution--what we hear people refer 
to as a CR--just like was done the year before, just like was done the 
year before, and just like was done the year before.

  Congress actually functions on the calendar year, but we pretend to 
function on a fiscal year. That just guarantees that every October, 
November, and December, we have budget chaos as we try to figure out 
how to run the system. How about this for a simple solution: Why don't 
we actually run it on a calendar year, because that is how we actually 
do it, including this year. That would mean we would actually plan and 
structure for that. That is significant budget reform. But currently 
the conversation in the budget reform committee is, no, we will try it 
again next year, and we will see if we can make September 30 work. It 
won't, by the way, but no one wants to actually make the shift.
  There has been a lot of debate about something called reconciliation. 
Reconciliation is a process that is intensely broken. It was designed 
by the Budget Act to be something to really focus on debt and deficit, 
but it has become a fight with our Parliamentarian and with each other 
about how to stick in something that is not debt and deficit related.
  Why don't we simplify the language? Why don't we clean up the 
reconciliation process? Why don't we make it what it was designed to be 
and make sure it is clear so that reconciliation is used by every 
Congress to deal with debt and deficit? It is a doable task. We have 
laid out multiple different proposals for how to do that. So far, they 
have all been turned down.
  We have to figure out a way to get better numbers. If we can't get 
better numbers, we are not going to get better results. We have to get 
real numbers from the Congressional Budget Office and from Joint Tax. 
We have to allow Joint Tax and other groups to do dynamic scoring so we 
get a predictive way to look at the spending and the tax and see what 
happens.
  We have to have real consequences if Congress doesn't do a budget. 
Americans know if Congress doesn't do a budget, they just leave town 
and say: We didn't get it done this year. How about this for a simple 
idea that would be effective even today, if we were doing it. There is 
a set deadline in statute, in law, when the budget has to be completed, 
when the appropriations bills have to be completed, and when they have 
to be signed. If those milestones or deadlines are not hit, Congress 
cannot adjourn, cannot leave town. I don't care if Thanksgiving is 
approaching--you set a deadline, and if it is not completed by that 
deadline, Congress has to be in session every day, including weekends, 
until it is done. That is a simple solution.
  If Congress is in session every single day, at some point, they will 
say: I want to go home and see my family, so we need to get this 
resolved. I would agree. There is not a pressure point better than 
forcing Congress to stay in town and stay in session until the work is 
done. We will see if that is actually added to the proposal, but so 
far, that is trending away from just saying to Congress in the future 
and now, no, we will try to get that done, but I am not sure we really 
will.
  If we want to end government shutdowns, then keep Congress in 
session. If we want to end long continuing resolutions, keep Congress 
in session until it is done. It is a pretty straightforward process. It 
would benefit our economy. It would benefit this Congress.
  Even simple things--it is fascinating to me. There is an internal 
process called vote-arama. It is awful. If you are ever here in the 
Senate watching it or around it, it is terrible. It is around the 
budget process, and it is an endless debate/vote, but none of the votes 
actually count. They are all messaging votes. They don't actually do 
anything. But anyone can bring up anything at any time, and we go 
through this endless series of messaging votes, trying to make each 
other look bad politically. It is a terrible process.
  It is fixable. In fact, we brought up an amendment today in the 
process--one of those 15 amendments that were debated before people 
left early for Thanksgiving--we brought up an amendment today to fix 
the vote-arama, and it failed because folks on the other side wanted to 
have messaging votes just in case it came up.
  In the last vote-arama that happened--an all-night, perpetual, 
meaningless vote series--the last vote in the vote-arama was a 
messaging vote: Should we end vote-aramas or not? It passed 
unanimously. Everyone in this Chamber says they hate it, but when there 
was a real option to get rid of it, they kept it because the status quo 
is easier than change.
  Significant budget reform was the mandate. That has not happened so 
far--not even small budget reform has happened so far. We will come 
back after Thanksgiving. We will have another series of amendments. We 
have an opportunity to get this right and to fix a very broken process. 
I will pray that over Thanksgiving, Members of this body and of the 
House determine that $21 trillion worth of debt needs significant 
reform, not just tweaks around the edges, and that when we come back 
after Thanksgiving, people

[[Page S7034]]

will actually approach this seriously instead of the flippant way it 
has been approached so far. We have to get this done. I commend us to 
get it done.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________