[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10546-10547]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                SPENDING

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, about the time I think Washington is 
beginning to get the message that the American people are fed up with 
runaway spending, my hopes are dashed by proposals to spend even more. 
I would like to refer to one here in just a moment.
  First, there is no question that the American people are unhappy 
about the spending binge and soaring debt that have occurred under this 
administration and this Congress. In the last year and a half, there 
has been trillions in new spending, program after program, bailout 
after bailout. We are about to see another one.
  Every time I return home to Arizona from Washington, my constituents 
remind me of their frustration with Washington's lack of restraint. 
They know the reckless spending and borrowing cannot go on forever. 
They are worried about how their kids and their grandkids will pay for 
all of President Obama's spending priorities and associated debt.
  Now, $260 of new debt has been added to each household every week of 
the Obama administration. Let me repeat. For every week of this 
administration, every household has another $260 of debt. Our national 
debt has now reached $13 trillion, much of which is held by countries 
such as China. More than $1 trillion has been added to the debt since 
the majority adopted legislation they called pay-go. These are so-
called budget controls which require Congress to pay for what it 
spends. But, unfortunately for the taxpayers,

[[Page 10547]]

the emergency designations and other budget gimmicks have been a 
convenient way for the majority to circumvent these pay-go rules.
  Now the President is asking for some more money to spend for yet 
another bailout. This time it is $23 billion for teachers' salaries and 
a total of $50 billion to defray the cost of State employees' and local 
employees' salaries. No guarantee that the funding would be used in the 
case of the teachers necessarily to save jobs, or firefighters, the 
same. And this comes just 16 months after Congress poured $100 billion 
for education into the so-called stimulus legislation, including $48 
billion in direct aid to the States. As for total Federal education 
spending, it has doubled since the year 2000 to 15 percent of the 
Federal budget now--not an inconsequential amount.
  Besides more spending and debt, I see the continuation of two 
troubling patterns here. One is the refusal of this administration and 
the majority in this Congress to encourage State and local governments 
to economize to live within their means, just as families and private 
sector businesses must do. The President's latest proposal for this $50 
billion in so-called emergency funding simply bails the States out, the 
State and local governments that have obligations to their employees.
  With regard to education, the Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, says 
the $23 billion for teachers is an emergency. But, as George Will 
pointed out in a recent column, the private sector has lost 8.5 million 
jobs during the recession or 7.4 percent of workers, while local 
governments have only lost 141,000 workers or less than 1 percent of 
their workers. Will writes, ``Now this supposed emergency, and states' 
dependency, may be becoming routine and perpetual.'' In other words, 
the Federal Government just becomes the payor for the salaries of 
people who work for State and local governments.
  Spending $23 billion is not going to help unemployed private sector 
workers find jobs; it may actually hurt them. And spending billions of 
stimulus dollars on State and local governments hasn't helped them to 
solve their financial problems thus far. How will spending billions 
remedy their underlying budget problems? It is just a temporary 
reprieve. But if they don't do anything to address the underlying cause 
of the problem, we will not have helped them at all.
  Education spending has not been neglected during the recession, and 
at some point local governments have to figure out a way to make do 
with what they have. The debt and out-of-control spending are the real 
emergencies we should be dealing with.
  The second pattern I would like to note is the administration's habit 
of supporting legislation that designates winners and losers, 
especially when it comes to labor unions. They were the beneficiaries 
of $85 billion in bailouts to the car companies and special tax 
treatment of the President's health spending law. Teachers unions are 
the winners if the President convinces Congress to spend another $23 
billion on teacher salaries. This is not the kind of change Americans 
had in mind when President Obama took office; that is, political allies 
getting special status and treatment.
  President Obama pays lipservice to fiscal responsibility but does so 
as long as his own priorities do not have to be put on hold; otherwise, 
he would not talk in the same breath about fiscal restraint on the one 
hand and another $50 billion in Federal taxpayer money or borrowing 
from other countries in order to pay teachers' salaries, firefighters' 
salaries, and the like. At some point, I believe the President will 
have to match his rhetoric with action; otherwise, the United States 
will not be able to avoid unprecedented budgetary and economic crises. 
Is this really the legacy this administration and this Congress want to 
leave behind? I think not.
  I think when I go home this week and I visit with constituents of 
mine, including another tea party group, I am going to hear an earful 
about how they thought Washington was beginning to get the message that 
we were not supposed to spend so much money we did not have; that they 
are tired of us going to borrow money from other countries such as 
China and putting it on the credit card for our kids and our grandkids 
to pay. I think I am going to have to tell them: Well, I thought folks 
were beginning to get the message, but now, with the President's new 
request, it appears we are going to have to deal with the problem 
again.
  I hope that when the President's proposed legislation comes to the 
Congress, we are able to say to him: No, not this time, just as we are 
with the legislation that is on the floor of the Senate this week, the 
so-called emergency that continues certain tax policies in force, 
extends certain benefits such as unemployment insurance, but does a lot 
of other things that are not paid for, that are not offset by cuts in 
other spending.
  I don't think we can continue to just keep piling on more and more 
spending without finding a way to offset it with savings elsewhere. It 
is not as if those savings can't be found, but we will never get there 
if we decide to take on the obligations of State and local governments 
to pay for all of the governmental workers who are on their payrolls. 
We have to start looking at the private sector and how to encourage the 
private sector to begin to put more of their folks back to work instead 
of taking money out of the private sector in order to keep these 
government workers employed.
  I hope my colleagues will take the message I have heard loudly and 
clearly from home to heart and begin to apply some fiscal discipline to 
the spending policies this administration is proposing and will for 
once say: No, we can't afford this, and so we are not going to spend 
the money.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak in morning business for such time as I consume.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________