[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3648-3649]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         REDUCTION IN THE DEBT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we had votes this afternoon on the 
continuing resolution proposal from the House, and the Senate did not 
approve that. We did not have the 60 votes necessary to accept that. 
The Democratic proposal, which I would suggest does nothing about the 
debt, failed. I guess there were four or five party defections. If we 
take what direction those defections meant, all of those defections 
went to the more conservative side in that several thought the House 
reductions in spending were not enough, and several Democratic 
colleagues thought the Democratic majority leader's proposal did not go 
far enough.
  I would just say that what we need to do--and it is very important 
that we achieve it--is to move toward a gradual, credible, sustained, 
mature reduction of the deficits this country has faced, and that takes 
some tough decisionmaking. It doesn't require us to act in an extreme 
or drastic way, but it means sustained serious changes in the 
trajectory in which we are headed.
  I would just note that the House proposed reducing our nondefense 
discretionary spending $61 billion over the rest of the fiscal year. If 
we take only the discretionary account, that amounts to about a 6-
percent reduction. If we take the entire Federal spending, it is less 
than a 2-percent reduction in the entire Federal spending. So it is 
utterly implausible that this reduction in spending is so significant 
that it will impact adversely our economy today--that is one of the 
arguments they are throwing out--particularly in light of the fact 
these don't consider that we are dealing with outlays of money that 
would not even be spent in this fiscal year. It will be spent in the 
next year or two as we build a project--a road or something--that takes 
several years to complete. So the actual reduction in outlay in this 
year would not be that significant, and it will not reduce the fragile 
growth rate we are in.
  What it does, though, is save $61 billion out of this year's 
appropriations. Over a period of 10 years, that will result in 
approximately $860 billion in savings because it reduces the baseline 
by this amount, and it carries out each with the 10 years of the $61 
billion reduction, plus the interest saved on all this debt since all 
of this money is borrowed. We are so deeply in debt, any reduction 
reduces our debt, it reduces our interest payment, and it puts us on a 
sound path.
  I do not believe the House sent us anything that is reckless or 
dangerous or extreme. The majority leader yesterday said it was 
reckless and used those kind of pejorative terms. It is not. It is a 
reasonable step that has a significant impact, pushing $1 trillion, 
actually, over 10. Do a few more little things and we would save $1 
trillion on our debt over 10 years, and that is significant.
  I would point out, Mr. President, we have had substantial increases 
in our budgets in the last 2 years--in 2010, in 2011--over the 2008 
budget proposal. We have added 25 percent increases in spending in 
these discretionary programs. Some of them have received substantially 
more than that. So taking down these numbers will not put us into the 
poorhouse. It is not going to substantially alter the nature of the 
very Republic that we are here to serve or the government that is 
supposed to serve the people. It is not going to savage our government. 
It is not going to savage the programs.
  For example, these reductions on which we voted, if they became law, 
$61 billion over the rest of this fiscal year would bring us still 
above the 2008 levels by 4.3 percent. In 2008 we were spending $378 
billion on these programs. If this reduction were to be accomplished, 
the spending for the rest of this year would be $394 billion. That is 
more than we were spending in 2008, and I believe it is a reasonable 
reduction.
  I suppose, after this vote, that leaders and wise heads and people I 
affectionately call ``masters of the universe'' will all get together 
and they will start deciding what we are going

[[Page 3649]]

to do: You didn't win your vote and we didn't win our vote, so let's 
just sit down here and let's divide up the pie and you give a little 
bit more, and we don't want to cut too much spending, you know, and we 
will just not agree to anything like these spending levels.
  I think that would be a mistake. I believe the American people in 
this last election were very clear that they expected us to do 
something about this reckless Washington spending. It was dominant in 
the election. There was a shellacking in this election of the big 
government big spenders. They went down all over the country--what was 
it, 87 new House Members elected, the biggest surge in years, every one 
of them, virtually, promising to contain the reckless spending in 
Washington.
  I cannot understand what it is that people do not comprehend about 
the nature of the circumstances we are in. Forty cents of every dollar 
we spend today has been borrowed. Every economist who testified has 
said we are on an unsustainable path.
  Mr. Erskine Bowles testified, President Clinton's former Chief of 
Staff, a successful businessman himself, the head of the debt 
commission, along with Alan Simpson, a former Senator. He said we could 
have a debt crisis in 2 years--maybe a little less, maybe a little 
more--at the rate we are going. Their joint statement said this country 
has never been in a situation in which we have such a predictable 
crisis. Senator Simpson declared that he thought we could have a debt 
crisis in less than a year. He said: I think it is less than a year, 
not 2 years. Alan Greenspan in January told the Wall Street Journal 
that there was a little better--not much--than a 50-50 chance that we 
would have a debt crisis in 2 to 3 years. These are ominous warnings. 
You can't spend $3.8 trillion and bring in $2.2 trillion and think you 
can continue that. It is the largest deficit in the history of the 
American Republic.
  The President's budget that he just submitted to us projects no 
budget in 10 years less than $600 billion. The last 3 years of his 10-
year budget, those deficits are going up to $900 billion. It is the 
wrong trend. This is not a course we can sustain. We have to get off of 
it. We could be reaching the precipice sooner than we think--1 year, 2 
years, 3 years--if we do not get off this path. We need to take action 
now.
  There is one opportunity; that is, this continuing resolution which 
allows us to make some reductions--enough to send a message that there 
are sufficient votes in this Congress to reverse the path we are on. 
Are there sufficient votes? I believe there are. Partisanship was in 
these last two votes. We know that. People were pressured on both 
sides. But the people who did not follow party lines were moving on to 
the right side, the more conservative, restrained side of spending. I 
think that suggests there is some momentum out there to do something 
other than just split the baby on this, how much we are going to reduce 
spending.
  The proposal of the majority leader is really a $4.6 billion 
reduction. That is less than one-half of 1 percent of the discretionary 
budget and a mere fraction of the total Federal spending this year. 
That is nothing.
  The choice is, are we going to do nothing or are we going to do 
something? Are we going to listen to the warnings that we are facing a 
predictable crisis financially or not? We can do this. This is not 
going to be a dramatic reduction in spending. Frankly, I would like to 
see it go a good bit lower, as a number of people in the Senate I know 
believe. But most of us believed it was significant, it puts us on a 
downward path, and it saves $61 billion this year and $850 billion over 
10. That is a pretty good amount to save in 7 months of this fiscal 
year, and we will come back next year and we will do more and better 
work.
  We are going to have to bring entitlements into the discussion, but 
the President is going to have to step up on that. If he is going to 
oppose that, nothing is going to pass on entitlements, that is for 
sure. So we need some leadership, and we can move this in the right 
direction.
  I am disappointed there were not more votes for the House proposal, 
but at least on the Republican side it got every Republican vote except 
a few who believed it did not go far enough in reducing spending.
  I believe the message needs to be, to whoever is meeting in these 
secret chambers without the American people and without--I won't be in 
there, I am sure. They will be meeting and making these plots. They 
need to know we are not just looking for any token cuts. We need to do 
something that is significant. We need to stay with the House number. 
That is what we need to do. It would be so good for this country. The 
whole world would say: This new Congress, they are taking a noticeable 
step. They actually reduced spending. Maybe in the United States they 
are ready to get their house in order. Maybe we do not mind continuing 
to buy their bonds. Maybe they will be able to honor their debts 
without debasing their currency. Maybe it is a good investment.
  I believe that is what we need to be saying because otherwise we 
could be in a situation in which our debt surges, the interest on our 
debt surges, and the value of our currency is debased, and that will 
put us on the road to political as well as economic decline.
  As ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, we have been wrestling 
with these issues. I thank Senator Conrad, our chairman. He has had 
some good hearings and good witnesses and good testimony, but it is 
time for action, not just talk. We need to do something.
  This is the bill that is before us. This CR is a vehicle by which we 
can speak to the American people, speak to the financial markets, say 
to the entire world that the United States realizes that our path is an 
unsustainable one, and we are going to do something about it. We are 
moving off that path. We are going to take the hard road. It will be a 
tougher road for a while, but it is the road to prosperity, it is the 
road to growth, and it is the road to more jobs.
  Excessive debt slows down the economy, as Reinhart and Rogoff's book 
and testimony show, as Secretary Geithner testified before the 
committee. It has already slowed our growth, he has acknowledged, and 
he is afraid we could have a debt crisis on an adverse incident that is 
exacerbated by the very high levels of debt we are under.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________