[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21131-21132]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            FEDERAL DEFICIT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we will be voting, I understand, on 
three pieces of legislation from the House. One is a massive omnibus 
bill that would include 9 of the 13 appropriations bills that should be 
brought up individually and voted on individually, with amendments on 
each one. They have all been cobbled together now at the end of the 
year in one giant omnibus bill, with only a few hours for us to review 
their contents.
  In addition, there will be a vote to offset certain emergency 
expenditures--in other words, pay for these new expenditures with 
savings elsewhere in the government rather than borrow the money for 
it--add to our debt for it. A third vote will be, in effect, to fund 
and appropriate the money that would be so offset or spend it by 
borrowing it if it is not offset.
  I would just share with my colleagues one particular thing. The 
Presiding Officer, Senator Whitehouse, is on the Budget Committee, and 
our staff has looked at these budget numbers. I would just advise my 
colleagues--I believe they should vote to offset the additional 
expenditure. This is the reason: The Budget Control Act enacted this 
summer was part of an effort where Republicans said: We will raise the 
debt limit, but we want you to cut spending. We need to cut back on 
spending because we have had a series of deficits the likes of which 
the Nation has never seen before. We have to do better. We need to 
reduce spending.
  Our Democratic colleagues resisted. So when it was finally done, it 
was a $900 billion-plus reduction in spending, which was to occur over 
10 years. Plus, the committee of 12 was supposed to find $1.2 trillion 
more if they could. If they could not, there would be an automatic cut 
of that. So it would be about a $2.1 trillion savings over 10 years.
  Experts have told us we need at least $4 trillion in savings over 10 
years, not $2 trillion. But it was a step in the right direction, and 
that was the best that could be done under the circumstances. So the 
bill was passed. What I want to say is that under that legislation, it 
was discovered that this year--the current fiscal year, that began 
October 1--we were going to spend $1.43 trillion instead of the $1.5 
trillion we spent last year. So there was a lot of heartburn and 
complaining. We are only cutting $7 billion out of the discretionary 
portion of our budget, not Social Security and Medicare, but other 
programs that are going up every year: food stamps, college loans, Pell 
grants.
  So we were going to cut at least the discretionary accounts by $7 
billion, from $1.50 trillion to 1.43 billion. But I have to say, we are 
not going to achieve that. Just as has so often been the case, we 
promise reductions in spending but do not get there. You would think 
that we could find $7 billion. You would think that is not too much to 
ask this government, that has been increasing spending at a substantial 
rate, to reduce spending a little bit.
  In fact, in the first 2 years of President Obama's administration, 
nondefense discretionary spending went up 24 percent, a dramatic 
increase. So to reduce spending and try to get this huge deficit under 
control is not too much to ask, in my opinion. Indeed, we are borrowing 
40 percent of every dollar we spend. This year we will spend about $3.6 
trillion and take in about $2.2 trillion or $2.3 trillion. That is just 
not any way to do business.
  This will be the third straight year that has happened. So we were 
looking for some improvement. I would just say to my colleagues, this 
is one little offset, $8 billion in additional spending, and it will 
determine whether we have any reduction in spending or whether, in 
fact, contrary to our promises this summer, we will spend more this 
year than last year.
  These are the numbers as we have calculated them from the Budget 
Committee staff. The regular appropriations would be this year $1.43 
trillion, but they have added to it disaster and other spending of $11 
billion, which would mean we would be spending $1.54 trillion, more 
than the $1.50 trillion we spent last year. We would be spending more, 
not less.
  The House has sent over a bill that would offset $9 billion of that, 
which would bring the total spending this year to $1.45 trillion. That 
would reduce our spending this year by $5 billion, not as much as we 
promised in the Budget Act but at least a modest reduction.
  It is a very important vote. It is a symbolic vote. It says: Are we 
honest with the American people when we go before them with a bill that 
says we are going to spend less than we spent last year, even if it was 
a small amount? We cannot even achieve that.
  Perhaps that is why people are unhappy with us. We have been 
promising them that we would do something about the debt situation in 
this country. But we have not done much. As a matter of fact, we have 
done almost nothing.
  So I would just urge my colleagues to think about that as they cast 
their votes on this portion of the House legislation, which has not 
been discussed much among our colleagues, and not particularly well-
understood. But I do think it is important. I think it is an important, 
symbolic vote.
  Are we willing to do that? It would amount to about a 1.86-percent, 
less than 2 percent across-the-board rescission to offset spending on 
the other spending items, exempting defense and some other items. 
Defense, of course, has taken dramatic cuts already. They are working 
on very dramatic cuts, and as a result of the failure of the committee 
of 12, they will take a huge cut.
  The Defense Department has taken, on a percentage basis and a real 
dollar basis, far more in reductions than any other department. Of 
course this is not for war spending. War is in a separate overseas 
contingency account. This is the base defense budget that is taking the 
cuts. I wanted to share that with my colleagues.
  I also appreciated Senator Hoeven's presentation on the Keystone 
Pipeline. And I truly believe, and agree with my friend from Vermont, 
that unemployment is a tremendous problem for us.
  What I don't agree with is that it can be fixed by borrowing and 
spending and taxing. That is what we have seen lately. I suggest that 
one way to deal with

[[Page 21132]]

unemployment is to not spend any government money, get the government 
bureaucrats busy, examine this pipeline. We have pipelines crossing all 
over this country. If we bring those under control, approve this 
pipeline, it will add 20,000 real jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs and 
make this country more safe and secure from foreign energy 
exploitation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for as 
long as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

                          ____________________