[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 684-686]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         OUT-OF-CONTROL DEFICIT

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are about to take up a new spending bill 
in the Senate involving transportation funding for the United States. 
This bill, which is an important bill, comes to the Senate in a 
fiscally unsound condition. That is regrettable. What is even more 
regrettable is that this is the continuation of an unfortunate line of 
legislation which has come to the Senate and which has been passed by 
the Senate and passed by the House. In some cases, not passed by the 
Senate but at least passed by the House, and has significantly expanded 
spending at the Federal level, which has in turn dramatically 
aggravated the national deficit. This is unfortunate.
  To recap some of the bills, we had, for example, the agriculture 
authorization bill, which included basically a conversion to an 
entitlement scheme of most of the agricultural programs and 
dramatically increased spending in those accounts well above what we 
would have budgeted on the discretionary side.
  That was followed, of course, by the most significant piece of 
spending legislation in my career in Government, the most significant 
piece of legislation from an entitlement standpoint since the Medicare 
bill was originally passed back in the late 1960s, early 1970s period, 
and that was the Medicare prescription drug bill. That bill included 
$400 billion--as represented, at least--of new spending over 10 years, 
which was unpaid for, and which had, after it is outside the 10-year 
budgeting window and got into the real terms of how that bill was going 
to affect national spending, had a price tag of somewhere between $6 
and $8 trillion of unpaid-for spending.
  I did not support the Medicare prescription drug bill because I felt 
it was

[[Page 685]]

the largest generational tax increase in history, basically raising 
significantly the benefits for one generation which will have to be 
paid by a younger generation. That means the younger generation is 
going to have to increase their taxes significantly to support the 
older generation, my generation, the baby boom generation, by the tune 
of $6 to $8 trillion. Thus, I did not support that bill because I did 
not think it was fair to the younger generation to put this tax bill on 
them without substantive reform in the bill which would control the 
costs of Medicare. We passed this bill only 2 or 3 months ago.
  Now we learn the original estimates of the bill, which were $400 
billion over 10 years, were misstated. It now appears the bill is going 
to be projected at costing $500-plus billion. That amount also is 
probably misstated. That is probably a conservative number. At the time 
the Medicare bill was debated in the Senate, there were some Members 
who said the accurate reflection for the 10-year period was closer to 
$700 billion, but the debt was not being correctly stated and, scoring 
being scoring, the bill came in at $395 billion. Ironically, if it came 
in at $401 billion, it would have been out of order, but it came in at 
$395 billion so it was in order.
  Now we learn 3 months later it really was $500-plus billion. That is 
just in 3 months. Imagine, if it jumped $100 billion, or 25 percent in 
3 months, at the end of a year, if you project that number out, it will 
jump--that is a progressive geometric number--somewhere around 200 
percent by the end of this year. Hopefully not.
  In any event, the fact that we were misled, the fact that this number 
is so high is unfortunate. The problem is, it puts in place structural 
spending which is out of control and which has to be paid for by one 
generation in order to support the next generation, which is unfair for 
our generation to do to our children unless we put in place reform. And 
there was no significant reform. That was the most egregious act I have 
seen in my career in Congress or in Government in the area of fiscal 
responsibility, because of the inappropriateness of one generation 
passing a tax increase on to another generation.
  That bill, which was a huge bill, was then followed by the Energy 
bill. The President of the United States asked for an $8 billion Energy 
bill. I supported an energy bill. We need an energy bill. It should be 
based on expanding conservation. It should be based on expanding 
renewables. It should be based on expanding supply. I am one of the few 
Senators from the Northeast who aggressively voted for all three of 
those areas. However, when the President asked for $8 billion, I 
thought that was reasonable and it was a budgeted figure.
  What happened? The Energy bill came back in the Senate at $24 billion 
which was $16 billion over what the President asked for. Due to a group 
of Members, fiscal conservatives and people concerned about some of the 
technical aspects of this bill, it did not make it through a filibuster 
issue.
  Now it is up to $31 billion. It just keeps going up and up and up. 
Those costs have to be passed on, once again, to our children, because 
we are basically financing the cost of that Energy bill on our 
children's backs through deficit spending. It is totally inappropriate 
that a bill that was supposed to be $8 billion ends up at $31 billion.
  Those bills are three egregious examples in the area of spending 
control, now to be followed by a fourth, it appears. Presently, we have 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, known as TEA-21, 
which basically funds the construction of highways, rail, and 
intermodal transportation in this country. This area of activity for 
governance is generally accepted to be an important part of our job as 
stewards of our country. We must maintain a strong infrastructure. I 
certainly believe that. So to accomplish that when TEA-21 was passed a 
few years ago, there was a 40 percent increase in funding over the 
previous funding bill, ISTEA.
  The theory was that we would take the money from the trust fund, 
which was paid in through the gas tax and other related taxes, and fund 
transportation in this country to the full extent of the amount of 
money we were taking in from the users of the highways and the users of 
the transportation system. That was a reasonable approach.
  There is no reason we should be taking money from the gas tax and 
using it for other exercises in Government, other needs in Government, 
whether they are justified or not, such as investments in agriculture 
or investments in small business or investments in education. It is 
appropriate that we should use the user fee, which is the gas tax, to 
support the construction of highways.
  The whole concept of the transportation bill was: We would pass a 
transportation bill which funded the construction of highways in this 
country and intermodal transportation at the level that the 
transportation system was supporting itself, basically through the gas 
tax and other revenue sources.
  We budgeted for that as a Congress, and then it was sent to 
committee. Regrettably, what we have seen come out of committee is 
something entirely different. What the budget suggested we spend in 
this area--depending on how you account for this--is either $221 
billion or $255 billion. Mr. President, $221 billion is basically what 
the revenues are coming in from the highway fund, but we could have 
gone up to $255 billion if the total spending could be paid for by 
legitimate sources of income into the trust fund. Unfortunately, what 
happened when this bill came back was we ended up with a $318 billion 
bill. This represents a $93 billion increase over present funding under 
TEA-21. In fact, the Senate position is conservative compared to the 
House's position because the House is looking to pass a bill which 
represents something like $375 billion for this six year period of 
spending.
  These numbers are staggering. There are going to be a lot of numbers 
thrown around this body in the next few days on this bill, but no 
matter how you account for it, it is fairly clear this bill is over the 
budget by somewhere between $30 and $70 billion, depending on where it 
ends up, maybe even more. That is inexcusable.
  There will be an attempt to mask this. In fact, the Finance Committee 
will report out language which tries to accomplish that. They took a 
whole series of different taxes which are now flowing into the general 
fund, and they moved those taxes over to the trust fund, thus claiming 
the trust fund had revenues. They do not mention the fact, of course, 
that aggravates the general fund because if the money is not going to 
go into the general fund, then that becomes a deficit event.
  Again, it is not absolutely clear, because we have not gotten all the 
numbers yet, which is one of the reasons we should not be bringing this 
bill up yet, but it appears we are talking somewhere in the vicinity of 
$20 to $40 billion of gamesmanship here by moving revenues out of the 
general fund into the highway fund, and by claiming revenues from 
sources which do not pay revenues in. It appears that is a game that is 
being played.
  It is staggering when you think about it that we would have the 
chutzpah as a Congress to call up a bill that is $30 to $70 billion 
over the budget and in deficit when the deficit was just reported as 
being $520 billion--or projected to be that much for next year--and 
$477 billion for this year. It is as if there are blinders on in this 
institution on the issue of spending.
  Unfortunately, it is a bipartisan problem. That is why I guess it is 
happening so often. The Agriculture bill was a bipartisan bill. The 
Medicare bill was a bipartisan bill. The Energy bill was a bipartisan 
bill, and it appears that this highway fund has enough of a bipartisan 
majority to ram it right through this Senate, as fiscally irresponsible 
as it is.
  The problem is this: We can build all the roads in the world, but if 
we do not do them in a fiscally responsible way, then our children are 
not going to be able to afford cars to drive on those roads. Their 
quality of life is going to be reduced because we are adding to the 
deficit, and that means we are adding to their tax burden every time we

[[Page 686]]

do this. That debt burden translates into a reduced quality of life for 
future generations.
  We have put forward as a Congress a legitimate benchmark for 
legitimate spending in the area of TEA-21. The budget had in it a 
proposal to significantly increase TEA-21 spending, I think by 
something like 30 or 40 percent. But that has been ignored. It has been 
claimed that that amount is not enough. No. We have to go ramming past 
that and propose a bill on the floor of the Senate that is $93 billion 
over last year's spending and $30 to $70 billion over what the budget 
called for. And that is just the start.
  There is a game being played here besides the fact that most of the 
revenues for the additional funds which are claimed to be offset here 
are illusory, which is so outrageous that it gives smoke and mirrors a 
bad name. That is just the start because we all know what is going on. 
There is an agreement, a sub rosa agreement, if you wish, between the 
people who are supportive of this bill in this body and the people who 
want more spending in the other body that this figure that comes out of 
the Senate is irrelevant, that the final number is going to be a lot 
higher than the Senate number. As I mentioned, the House is already 
talking about numbers in the high 300s, and the representation we hear 
is we will be closer to the House number coming out of conference than 
the Senate number, which is already grossly inflated as far as cost.
  So I just simply lay this marker down. We are going to have to start 
getting serious about this deficit. We have not so far as a Congress, 
but we are going to have to because it is our job. It is our job to be 
stewards not only of today but of what we pass on to tomorrow.
  If we are going to be good stewards, then we have to be fiscally 
responsible. I hope others will take a serious look at this bill before 
they vote for it. Before they even vote to go to it, it would be nice 
if we actually knew what was going on and how many more games are going 
to be played before we go to the bill in its substantive form. We 
should certainly be willing to ask that much before we have cloture on 
the motion to proceed.
  But, in any event, as we debate the language of this bill and the 
purposes of this bill--which are well intentioned, and which can be 
paid for at a reasonable price--we need to keep in mind that this is 
one part of a series of bills that have not been fiscally responsible, 
and we have to start someplace in being responsible in managing the 
dollars of this country effectively. The other horses are out the barn 
door, with the exception of energy, although there is some talk that 
they are going to attach energy to this bill.
  This is the only item that is before us so far, but it is a big one. 
Therefore, we should take a hard look at it. Before we move it out of 
this body, we should try to bring it back in line with our budget and 
with the realities we face as a country, which is that we are spending 
a lot more money than we can afford as a Government.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________