[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 31, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5213-S5214]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, can you hear it? Can you hear the somber
notes, the feet shuffling, and the solemn tones? Can you hear it? It is
a dirge, a funeral march, and it is the death of a movement--a once
proud movement with hundreds of thousands of people gathered on the
National Mall. It is the death and it is the last gasp of a movement in
America that was concerned with our national debt.
Today is the final nail in the coffin. The tea party is no more. The
budget deal today allows unlimited borrowing for nearly 2 years--
unlimited, no limits--and the government will borrow what they wish
without limit for 2 years. It abolishes all spending caps. Adoption of
this deal marks the death of the tea party movement in America. Fiscal
conservatives--those who remain--should be in mourning for Congress.
Both parties have deserted you.
The national debt now stands at $22 trillion. This year, we will add
over $1.2 trillion. We are approaching record deficits, and neither
party cares. Both parties have deserted, have absolutely and utterly
deserted America and have shown no care and no understanding and no
sympathy for the burden of debt they are leaving the taxpayers, the
young, the next generation, and the future of our country.
The very underpinnings of our country are being eroded and threatened
by this debt. The interest on this debt will be over $400 billion next
year--precisely, $455 billion. Interest will surpass all welfare
spending in the next 2 years. Interest on the debt will surpass defense
spending by 2025.
Social Security is $7 trillion in debt. Medicare is over $30 trillion
in debt. Yet a parade of candidates on national television last night
said they want to double and triple the government's expenditures where
the government is already trillions of dollars short. Whose fault is
this? Both parties.
The media completely doesn't get it. The media says: Oh, there is not
enough compromise in Washington. That is exactly the opposite of the
truth. There is too much compromise in Washington. There is always an
agreement to spend more money. There is always an agreement to spend
money we don't have. There is always an agreement to borrow your kids'
and your grandkids' money and to put this country further at risk.
Admiral Mullen put it this way. He said the most significant threat
to our national security is our debt. Yet all around me on my side of
the aisle are those who clamor and say: Our military is hollowed out
and can't complete its mission. Well, perhaps the mission is too big
for the budget. Maybe it is not a problem of having enough money; maybe
it is a problem of making our mission to be everything to everyone
around the world, to have spent $50 billion a year building roads and
bridges in Afghanistan for the last 20 years and to continue that
forever.
When the President put forward a proposal, a thought that we might
try to end and to declare victory in Afghanistan, this body--both
parties rose up as one, and the vast majority said it would be
precipitous to leave Afghanistan after 19 years.
This is the problem. It isn't acrimony. It isn't both parties
fighting each other. It is both parties agreeing to increase the debt.
They increase the debt for different reasons, but the only way they get
theirs--``give me mine, give me mine'' is what both sides say. The
right wants for the military. Yet we spend more on the military than
the next 10 countries combined. We spend more on the military--the
United States spends more than all of NATO combined. All of the NATO
countries combined spend less than we do on the military.
People say we are hollowed out and we can't complete our mission.
Well, maybe the mission is too big. It isn't that the budget is too
small; it is that the mission is too big. Maybe we don't need to have
troops in 50 of 55 African countries. Maybe we need to rethink our
mission. Maybe the mission of the military should be to defend our
country, not to intervene in every civil war around the world.
Admiral Mullen said the most significant threat to our national
security is our debt. Yet we are piling on more debt, saying we need
more military. Maybe we need to discuss the mission of our military. We
are piling on more debt, some in the name of national security. Yet I
think it weakens us with every moment.
The vote today will be on a 2-year debt ceiling with no limits. The
details do matter. Raising the debt ceiling with no limits would be
like telling your kid: OK, you can have a credit card, but there will
be no limits on what you spend. Just spend it on whatever you want, in
whatever amount, and in 2 years, I will just pay the bill for you.
Nobody would do that with their family money, and no country should
act that way. We can't keep going on like this.
Where are all the fiscal conservatives? What happened to the tea
party movement, which was bipartisan and was concerned citizens rising
up and saying: I don't want something from government. What I want is a
government that is responsible, a government that spends what comes in,
a government that doesn't keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing
and putting us further at risk.
What happened to that movement? That movement elected some of these
people. You heard these people. Don't you remember, when President
Obama was President, the Republicans all clamoring and saying
``trillion-dollar deficits'' for multiple years. Every year, they would
say: President Obama wants to spend and borrow and spend and borrow. I
heard it in my State. I heard it from the very people who today will
vote for this monstrosity.
Some of them will actually vote for my amendment to give themselves
cover. They will say: Oh, yeah, I was for the Paul amendment. But then
they are also going to vote for the deal that will bankrupt our
country. What happened to these people? They all thought debt was bad
when it was President Obama's debt, but they are
[[Page S5214]]
not ecumenical, and they are not very much into self-examination. They
are not interested in the debt now that Republicans are complicit.
But before we make this about Republicans, remember that there is not
a Democrat in Washington who cares about the debt. The difference
between the parties is that the Democrats are honest. They are very
honest. They don't care about the debt. Look, they are all over the
stage, falling all over themselves, trying to give free healthcare to
illegal aliens. They are all on the stage trying to talk about giving
Medicare for All when we can't even afford the Medicare for Some. So
Democrats don't care. The country should know that Democrats do not
care about the debt. But here is the problem: The only opposition party
we have in the country is the Republican Party, and they don't care
either. They just come home, and they are dishonest and tell you they
care, and then they vote for a monstrosity.
Today's vote will be a vote for a monstrosity, an abomination, the
ability to borrow money for over 2 years until guess what intervenes.
Why are we going to wait 2 years with no limits on borrowing? There is
this little thing called an election. They don't want to be in public
voting to raise the debt ceiling an unlimited amount or a vast amount
again, so they are putting it off to beyond the election. Both parties
are complicit, though. Nobody wants to vote on this again.
People talk about draining the swamp. You can't drain the swamp
unless you are willing to cut the size and scope of government. That is
the swamp. The swamp is this morass that is millions of people up here
organized to involve themselves in the economy. Most of them could
disappear from government, and no one would notice. The only thing you
would notice is less money coming to Washington and more money
remaining in the States.
It is a little bit of what happened with the tax cut. But in addition
to the tax cut returning to people their own money, we should also quit
spending money we don't have up here. During the tax cut, I, for one,
said: You have to cut spending. I offered amendments during the tax cut
to cut spending. Do you know what happened? I got four votes. Four
people in the Senate cared about the debt on that particular vote.
After we passed the tax cut, there is a provision that says there
will be automatic spending cuts if the taxes were to bring in less
revenue. Guess what. I forced a vote to keep that rule in place. I got
nine votes because most people don't care.
No Democrat cares about the debt. The Republicans falsely tell you
they care, and the vast majority will vote for this monstrosity today.
Today, I will offer an alternative. Some say: Well, you conservatives
won't vote to raise the debt ceiling at all, and we will go bankrupt,
there will be turmoil in the markets, and it will be a disaster. So
what I am offering for conservatives today is that we will raise the
debt ceiling under a couple of conditions. We will raise the debt
ceiling if you adopt, in advance, significant spending cuts, caps on
spending, and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
See, here is the road, and here is, I guess, the beginning and the
end of the dishonesty around here. If we had a vote today, we would
have some people saying: Why don't we vote on the balanced budget
amendment?
We all love to vote for it. We don't really mean it. We don't really
care about balancing the budget. We are not for it because we are Big
Government Republicans. But we love to vote for the balanced budget
amendment because I can go home and tell people: Yeah, I voted for the
really crazy, monstrous budget deal to expand the debt, but I also
voted for the balanced budget amendment.
Well, here is our deal. We don't want to vote on the balanced budget
amendment; we want adoption of the balanced budget amendment. So if you
will cut spending, if you will cap spending, and if you will pass a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, I will vote to raise the
debt ceiling--but only if those things are done.
People say: Well, if we don't raise the debt ceiling without any
reform, the country--the markets will go into turmoil. Well, guess
what. We bring in $3 trillion, and we spend $4 trillion. What does that
mean? We can pay for $3 trillion on a daily basis without borrowing. So
if tomorrow we didn't raise the debt ceiling, what would happen? We
would spend $3 trillion. Every Social Security check could go out,
every soldier could be paid, and everybody on Medicare could be taken
care of. That is probably about it, to tell you the truth, because we
spend too much damn money. We spend money we don't have. But you could
provide the essentials to people--Social Security, Medicare, pay our
soldiers, and maybe a few other things--if you just spent what came in.
Isn't that what we should do? Isn't that what responsible people do?
Does any American family routinely spend a third--25 percent more than
comes in? Does anybody spend $4 for every $3 that comes in? Nobody does
that. Nobody in their right mind does that, but your government does
it. And who is at fault? Both parties. They are complicit. They scratch
each other's backs. They both are terrible on the deficit. Both parties
are bad. Both parties are ruining our country.
My amendment is called cut, cap, and balance--cuts spending, puts
caps back in place that they can't exceed, and says that if we vote now
on a balanced budget amendment and if it passes and if it is sent to
the States, then we would raise the debt ceiling.
Most people around here don't want any linkage. It is not that they
will just complain that my budgetary reforms are too harsh; they will
complain that they don't want any. So there won't be any alternative.
There won't be someone saying: Well, those are too much, and we would
rather have just a little bit. No, they don't want any restraint. The
budget monstrosity, the deal, the abomination we will vote on today
will have no limits--no dollar limits.
I was arguing this last week on another particular issue, and from
across the country, I got reamed by the leftwing mob who says: Why are
you doing is this? Why couldn't you do it on another matter?
We do it on every matter. Those of us who are fiscally conservative
are saying that we shouldn't spend money we don't have. I am doing it
again this week, saying that we should not spend money we don't have,
that it is irresponsible, and that we are eroding the very foundation
that has made America great.
I will vote against this budget deal. I will present cut, cap, and
balance. Cut, cap, and balance is a responsible way to raise the debt
ceiling by cutting spending, capping spending, and also passing a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I hope my colleagues
will consider that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from South Dakota.