[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3359-3361]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          GOVERNMENT SPENDING

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I don't think a 6-percent reduction in 
spending that is proposed by the House is going to cause the U.S. 
Government to sink into the ocean. States are making far more serious 
reductions in spending than that.
  The language the majority leader is using seemed to me like the 
language of 1994--reckless Republican spending cuts, poor people thrown 
to the street, and that sort of thing. But what happened in 1994? The 
American people, through their newly elected Congress, balanced the 
budget in 4 years. They balanced the budget when people said it could 
not be done. They said the spending reductions were going to destroy 
America's growth and prosperity and everything else they could imagine. 
But it didn't happen. It helped create a period of outstanding growth.
  Tuesday, we are told, we will have a key vote. It is a very important 
vote. It deals with the level of spending in which this country is 
going to participate. It is going to make a national decision that is 
important. We passed a 2-

[[Page 3360]]

week continuing resolution that reduced spending by $4 billion over 
that period, keeping us on track to meet the House-passed goal of a $61 
billion reduction in spending this fiscal year. It was a good, small, 
first step. But the big step will be coming up, I suppose, a week from 
this Friday when the CR that we passed will expire and we have to pass 
another one. At what level will we pass it? That is the question that 
will be before us.
  Will we continue the trend of reduced spending that the House started 
us on and that the American people started us on by the election last 
November, just months ago, or do we continue business as usual--
continue to be in denial and say no more, no mas, we can't do anymore, 
we give up.
  Well, a vote for the Democratic plan that will be presented tomorrow 
will be a vote to do nothing. That is a fact. It will be a vote to say 
we are still in denial. It will be a vote that says deficits don't 
matter, we can just continue to spend, just continue to invest, and it 
will all get better in the end. It is a vote for more investment and 
more spending.
  Indeed, the Budget Committee, on which I am the ranking Republican, 
had testimony last week from the Department of Education. They are 
asking for an 11-percent increase, when the inflation rate is 2. The 
Department of Energy asked for a 9.5-percent increase. Amazingly, the 
Department of Transportation came in with a 62-percent increase in 
spending.
  Is this the way to bring this country under control? Is that what the 
American people expected when they voted in the last election and sent 
us a new House of Representatives and new Senators? I don't think so. 
It will be another vote for fear that we can't reduce spending because 
the Nation will sink into the ocean. I don't think so, and the American 
people don't think so in the cities, counties, and States that are 
facing these same situations and making tough decisions and being 
successful at it.
  The decision we make on spending could well determine the fate of our 
Nation and our economy. It is that important; it really is. Forty 
percent of every dollar we spend today is borrowed. We will spend, this 
fiscal year, $3.5 trillion, but we only take in $2.2 trillion. Did you 
know that? Congress knows that. They are in some denial, but that is a 
fact. It is indisputable, and it is in the President's budget.
  Over the next 10 years, pursuant to the budget--the plan the 
President gave us--interest on the debt will go from $200 billion last 
year to $844 billion in 1 year. We will double the entire national 
debt, the gross debt, from $13 trillion to $26 trillion. They claim 
they are saving $1 trillion. I guess it would have gone to $27 
trillion. How can we save $1 trillion when the deficit is going up 
every year? The lowest single year of deficit is $600 billion. The 
highest single deficit year President Bush had--which was too high--was 
$450 billion. The lowest they will have is $600 billion, according to 
the President's own numbers, which he sent to us. This is not an 
acceptable path.
  We are on the wrong road. This is a road to decline. It is the road 
to dependence upon foreign sources of money to finance our spending 
spree. It is not the road to prosperity and growth. We simply have to 
make tough choices. We have to make this government leaner and more 
productive.
  We need to create growth and prosperity. The growth and prosperity 
have to be in the private sector. That is who pays the taxes, which 
allows us to continue to have a healthy government. A failure to act at 
this point in history, after all of the discussion we have had in the 
debt commission--and several have met and all have called for 
substantial reductions in spending. But Congress doesn't get it. This 
is demoralizing for our people, for our government, for investors in 
the United States, for businesses sitting on capital and thinking about 
what the future will be like, whether this is not going to be a sound 
economy any longer or is the Government of the United States incapable 
of altering its trajectory. They thought perhaps this election was that 
way.
  Well, the House has sent a clear message. Some think it could have 
gone further. It proposed a $61 billion reduction in discretionary 
spending accounts. That is a 6-percent reduction. We have already 
gotten 4 off that, so it would be $57 billion. When we take these 
numbers--and I hope we will think about this--when we reduce the 
baseline by $61 billion for spending in discretionary accounts, that is 
far larger than some people think.
  One of the things that got us in trouble is the geometrical problem 
of increasing spending--when we increase spending at 7 percent a year, 
for example, for 10 years, we double the size of government just like 
your bank account doubles at 7 percent interest compounded.
  In reducing spending, the same thing occurs. A $61 billion reduction 
in the baseline, if there were no more reductions over 10 years built 
into the baseline, will result in about $850 billion in savings. In 10 
years, that is almost $1 trillion. That is with just a $61 billion cut. 
It does make a difference, and it is significant.
  But President Obama's plan and the Senate Democratic plan do almost 
nothing. He proposes, as I understand it, a $6 billion cut for the rest 
of the fiscal year. That is just about a one-half of 1 percent 
reduction in spending. The Senate Democratic plan, it appears to me, is 
a $4 billion reduction, which is less than a one-half of 1 percent 
reduction in spending this year.
  Those are fake cuts; they are not real cuts. This is Washington talk. 
This is why this country is virtually broke. The President says he 
proposed a budget to the Congress--as the law requires him to do--and 
that budget would cause us to live within our means and to begin paying 
down the debt. That is what he said, and that is what his Budget 
Director said in testimony before the committee.
  What planet are they on? The lowest single annual deficit--and if 
anybody on this floor wants to dispute this, I would like to hear it. 
The lowest single annual deficit is over $600 billion in the 10-year 
plan. They are going up in the outyears to almost $900 billion in the 
tenth year of the 10-year plan.
  That is why experts tell us this is an unsustainable course. I wish 
we weren't in this fix. I will have to take some of the blame too. I 
voted against a lot of spending programs, but I have supported some, 
and we have gotten ourselves into a fix. It will be hard to get out of 
it. It is not impossible, but we have to take some action. It cannot be 
business as usual. But that is what the majority leader is proposing to 
do--nothing. Let the interest on our debt go from $200 billion a year 
to $844 billion.
  Where is that money going to come from? The education budget is $60 
billion, the highway budget is $40 billion--$844 billion on interest? 
What is it going to crowd out that we would like to spend government 
money on? What if we have a debt crisis? Interest rates are at 3.5 
percent, but a lot of people think this interest rate is not so stable. 
A lot of people are afraid we could have a national or even 
international debt crisis. Interest rates could surge.
  When I bought my first house, the interest rates were double digits. 
I think it was 11.5 percent. Do you think we could not have that 
happen? Instead of $844 billion in interest, could we have $1\1/2\ 
trillion in interest in 10 years, crowding out all kinds of other 
spending? This is irresponsible. This is an irresponsible course. 
Everybody knows it. We can't borrow our way out of debt.
  So what is going to happen? Let's pull back the curtain and talk 
about what the plans are. It is pretty clear if we look at it and have 
been around this town a little bit. The Democratic leader didn't want 
to have any debate. He accepted the $4 billion reduction over the 2-
week period last week. That was done and nobody talked about it much. 
The American people assumed things were rolling along pretty well, that 
at least we avoided a government shutdown and things are moving along 
pretty well.
  So now we are going to have another quick vote tomorrow--that was 
decided, apparently, today--on two plans:

[[Page 3361]]

the House plan on a 6-percent reduction and a Democratic plan with 
basically no reduction. Then neither one will pass.
  A week from this Friday, the 2-week CR will expire, and we will be 
heading toward a government shutdown. Secret negotiations will begin; 
they will start talking. Maybe the Vice President will get in there and 
talk a little bit, and they will move around, and special interests 
will be involved. The American people will not be in on the discussion. 
They probably will not invite me in on the discussion. I don't know who 
all will be there, but they will begin to negotiate and talk, and they 
will be seeking some toothless compromise. There will be warnings and 
crocodile tears will be shed and they will say we can't have a 
government shutdown. We have had a half dozen for short periods of 
time, but we certainly don't want one.
  That is the way they will talk about it--we just can't cut anymore; 
it is going to end--schools will close, health care programs are going 
to close. We have heard it all before. Every State, city, and county 
that goes through this has the same political rhetoric out there. We 
can't do it. It just won't happen.
  Then they are going to expect, I guess, the Republicans to cave, and 
the plan, of course, as it has been from the beginning, is business as 
usual. Business as usual. Politicians win again. People lose. Elections 
nullified. Business as usual.
  I do not think so. Business as usual has put us on the road to 
bankruptcy. The voters did speak. There is a moral responsibility of 
this Congress to respond to the legitimate cries of the American 
people. Do we not have that responsibility? I know one Senator who told 
me that during that election, every single ad they ran talked about 
reducing spending and this Senator won by a margin far more than anyone 
predicted. There is no doubt the American people expect us to reduce 
spending. They know there will be some people who will not get as much 
money as they were getting before, but they know we are spending too 
much. That is so commonsensical.
  A vote for the Democratic proposal truly would be a vote for the 
status quo. It would be a victory for the status quo. It would be seen 
clearly as a victory for the big spenders. It will be a continuation of 
the unsustainable fiscal path we are on--the path to decline, the path 
to dependence, debt dependence.
  The whole world is watching, just as we watched the British. They 
stepped to the plate and made cuts. The Germans have criticized the 
United States for excessive spending. The European Union has criticized 
the United States for our excessive spending. Canada has done a lot 
better than the United States in containing spending. The world is 
watching: What is the United States going to do? Is it going to get its 
house in order as the other developed nations are working to do? Have 
they made a national decision to reform their unsustainable actions?
  Some say these $61 billion in cuts would hurt growth. I contend that 
absolutely is not so. In terms of total government spending, we spend 
$3,500 billion. A $60 billion reduction in that spending total is not 
going to throw this economy into a recession. Indeed, it would send a 
message to the financial world that the American people have gotten it, 
that the Congress has gotten it, and they are at least beginning to end 
the unsustainable trajectory this government is on.
  The idea that we can borrow money, pay interest on it, and create 
jobs has not worked. If it were such a good idea, why don't we borrow 
three times as much and spread around three times as much money? It is 
not an economically sustainable theory. It will not work, and it has 
not worked.
  We are facing a huge national decision. I believe many of my 
Democratic colleagues get it. They tell me they do. Many of them have 
said so publicly. But talk is not enough. Action will be needed. We 
will begin to take action tomorrow when we cast this vote. Party 
loyalty is fine. We all have to try to work with our leadership. Nobody 
complains about that, to a degree, but we are not to be lemmings. We do 
have a duty to our constituents, our country, and our future to make 
some tough decisions.
  For example, I will share one more thought and I will wrap up. I see 
my colleague, Senator Roberts, an able Senator from Kansas, is here. Do 
not think we are cutting spending, this 6-percent reduction, from some 
tight baseline of spending, such as may be so in your State, your city 
or your county. In the last 2 years, nondefense discretionary spending 
has increased 23 percent, and that does not count the stimulus package 
money, the $850 billion, the largest expenditure ever in the history of 
this Republic or any other nation in the history of the world. That is 
on top of the 23 percent in spending.
  For example, the EPA, in 2 years, received a 36-percent increase in 
baseline spending. They cannot take a 6-percent reduction? Plus, they 
got a 70-percent increase from the stimulus package, a $7 billion 
infusion on top of their $10 billion budget.
  What about the State Department? They got a 132-percent increase in 
spending in the last 2 years, plus $1 billion from the stimulus 
package.
  The Education Department asked for an 11-percent increase this year. 
They received an 11-percent increase previously and--hold your hat--
their budget is about $63 billion now. They got $97 billion out of the 
stimulus package--more than their whole budget.
  We borrow 40 cents out of every $1 we spend. Our debt will soon 
outgrow our economy. Interest on the debt, under the President's 
budget, will rise to $844 billion a year. The question is not whether 
we are headed for a crisis but whether we have time to act to prevent 
it.
  Our character is tested by how we respond in times of great 
challenge. This week, the Senate faces such a test: How do we respond 
to the growing fiscal crisis facing our Nation that every expert, 
including the debt commission, has told us is real? This is a defining 
vote in the career of every Senator and a defining vote for the Senate. 
A one-half percent proposed reduction in spending by this 
administration is not anything. It is basically doing nothing.
  We need every group, every concerned citizen to reach out to 
Congress, to tell Congress to get off this road to fiscal calamity. To 
every fellow Senator, I say now is the time to stand and be counted. 
Are my colleagues going to be the vote that helped us turn back from 
the fiscal cliff or the vote that pushed the economy that much further 
toward the edge?
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business 
and that I am recognized for 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I 
be recognized for 15 minutes. I will try to make it short. If it goes 
on any longer, I will ask unanimous consent for additional time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Alabama 
for laying out exactly what we face when we have a vote tomorrow in 
regard to the future of the United States and whether we restore common 
sense to Federal spending and prevent the chaotic situation he so aptly 
described, not only in terms of our immediate future but for our 
children and our grandchildren.
  That says it all in regard to we had a townhall meeting--Senator 
Jerry Moran, Congressman Kevin Yoder, and myself in Johnson County, KS. 
In that meeting, the first question out--it was 100 to 250 people who 
were so excited: When are you going to get control of this spending? 
They worry not just about themselves but their kids and grandkids.
  As usual, we are going to have to dub the Senator from Alabama the 
watchdog of the Senate, but he so eloquently described what we face. I 
thank him for it.

                          ____________________