[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5033-5035]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             BUDGET DEBATE

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are in the middle of the budget 
debate and, as the Ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, it is 
something which is very important to me, and, I believe, to America.
  There are two aspects of it. One is, how will we finish this fiscal 
year that ends September 30? The House Republicans have sent over 
legislation that funds the government, but it is $61 billion less than 
was expected or had been projected under last year's budget. I don't 
think anyone would be surprised, after the last election and the big 
spenders took a pretty big hit, that there would be a reduction after 
the continuing resolution of, I guess, 5 months expired. Since that 
expired a few weeks ago and we have had some short-term continuing 
resolutions, we have reduced spending by about $10 billion. I truly 
believe we need to move it on down to a full $61 billion and, over 10 
years, that will reduce the baseline by $61 billion and, fairly 
computed, it will save, over a 10-year timeframe alone, $860 billion. 
That is close to $1 trillion. It is real money. It is a significant 
step we should take. I hope this Congress will take it.
  The next matter that is before us is, what about next year's budget? 
We should already be in that cycle. The President has submitted the 
budget he is required by law to submit to the Congress. It does nothing 
about the threat to our country economically and financially. It is a 
great disappointment, the most irresponsible budget ever submitted, I 
am confident, by any President in the history of the American Republic. 
I have said that before, and I truly believe it. It is irresponsible. 
We cannot adopt it, we will not adopt it, and it will not become law. 
But our Senate has indicated they are prepared to consider--Democrats, 
too--a better budget, perhaps, but we haven't seen it. It has not been 
brought forth to the Budget Committee, as the law requires us to do, so 
far, and we are behind schedule. But the House tomorrow will consider a 
historic budget that honestly and carefully confronts the challenges 
facing us, long term and short term, dealing with entitlements, without 
gimmicks, and allows us to begin to focus on what the challenges are 
and why we have to take these steps.
  Because who wants to talk about cutting spending? What politician 
likes to do that? It is not something we like to do. Why are we talking 
about this? Why? Can't it be put off? Is it just political squabbling 
between Republicans and Democrats? They are always bickering. Is this 
what it is all about? Is there anything real here? Do we have a problem 
that can't be avoided? Is it something--can't we just continue like we 
are? Why do we have to worry about more reductions in spending?
  That is the question: Do we have a real crisis? Are we facing a 
threat to our economic well-being that could throw this country into 
another recession, maybe even a depression--surely, hopefully, not--a 
fiscal, financial crisis; is that possible?
  Let's talk about a couple things. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently stated that our national debt is the 
greatest threat to our national security. That is a pretty strong 
statement. Secretary of State Clinton said something very similar. Is 
that true? The American people pretty clearly agree with Admiral Mullen 
by a huge margin. They say we are on the wrong track. You are 
mismanaging Washington. There was a shellacking of the big spenders in 
the last election. People know we are spending too much money. We have 
had a 24-percent increase in spending since President Obama has been 
President--a 24-percent increase in discretionary nondefense spending. 
Inflation has been 1 or 2 percent during this time, and we had a 24-
percent increase.
  Next year's budget by the President calls for an 11-percent increase 
in education, a 10.5-percent increase in the State Department, a 9.5-
percent increase in the Energy Department, and a 61-percent increase in 
transportation and high-speed rail. What? The inflation rate is 2 
percent and we have 5 times--or 50 times, nearly, that amount in 
spending increases?
  Alarmingly, it is not just the American people or just the tea party, 
great American people who are concerned about their country. It is not 
just tea party members who are expressing concern and calling for 
action. It is the Nation's top financial experts. This is what is 
important. They are calling for action sooner rather than later.
  Erskine Bowles, President Obama's choice to head the deficit 
commission, who was also President Clinton's Chief of Staff and is a 
very successful businessman himself--he was chosen by President Obama 
to head the debt commission, along with Alan Simpson, a former 
Republican Senator. In a written statement they submitted to the Budget 
Committee just 2 weeks ago, this is what they said. This is a formal 
written statement from the debt commission cochairman to the Budget 
Committee of the Senate:

       This is the most predictable financial crisis this Nation 
     has ever faced.


[[Page 5034]]


  Predictable crisis. In other words, we can see it coming. They spent 
months doing research. They heard from all kinds of witnesses. When 
asked when the crisis might occur, which could involve some sort of 
double-dip recession or even a longer recession or higher unemployment, 
Mr. Bowles said it could be 2 years, maybe sooner, maybe later. Alan 
Simpson said it could be within a year. These are stark warnings, and 
the same message is coming from a host of the world's top financial 
experts.
  I have to say the good news is our country has a strong work ethic 
and an entrepreneurial spirit still exists. The indications are that 
despite the economic drag and our huge debt burden, the economy--far 
slower than normal recovering from this recession--is struggling to 
rebound. If we act decisively now to end our wasteful spending habits, 
we can be confident that progress in growth will continue.
  When our Nation's leaders are aware that their country is facing a 
crisis, they have no higher moral responsibility than to act to protect 
the Nation from that danger. Today's Wall Street Journal has an op-ed 
by the Nobel Prize laureate, Gary Becker; a former Secretary of the 
Treasury, George Shultz; and an economic professor, John Taylor. The 
article embraces the $61 billion in reduced spending passed by the 
House and debunks the critics unequivocally who call these cuts 
extreme. They directly and categorically rebut the assertion that these 
spending reductions will result in higher job losses and explain why 
that is a false view.
  Again, is the debate over spending just another Republican and 
Democratic squabble? Is it just an attempt to gain political advantage? 
Sound and fury signifying nothing?
  The answer is a resounding no. We are spending money we don't have in 
amounts dramatically greater than at any time in our history. When this 
fiscal year ends September 30, we will have spent $3.7 trillion and 
taken in only $2.2 trillion. Forty cents of every dollar we spend this 
year will be borrowed. We have to borrow the money we don't have. This 
will be the largest of three consecutive deficits exceeding $1 
trillion.
  President Bush was rightly condemned for his $450 billion deficit 1 
year--the highest he ever had. We have been over $1 trillion in the 
last 3 years. Next year's budget deficit is expected to exceed $1 
trillion.
  This money must be borrowed and interest paid. Nothing comes from 
nothing. Last year, the Nation's total interest payment was $200 
billion. That is how much we paid on the money we borrowed. For 
perspective, the Federal highway program--and Senator Inhofe knows 
about this--is about $40 billion, and we spent $200 billion on the 
interest. We would like to have spent more on highways. Federal 
education programs cost about $70 billion. So already the interest on 
our debt is the fastest growing expense of our government, and it is 
crowding out spending for other programs.
  But hold your hat. Our current trajectory takes us at increasing 
speed on a ``road,'' as the former head of the European Union said, 
``to financial hell.'' He said that about the United States.
  According to the official score or analysis of the President's 10-
year budget, the total debt of America will more than double, from $13 
trillion to $27 trillion, over the 10-year period, and our annual 
interest will increase from $200 billion last year to $940 billion. 
That is how much interest we will be paying the tenth year under the 
budget. It will cost more than education, highways, energy, and the 
State Department combined.
  Indeed, our interest payment will surge past defense, Medicare, and 
Medicaid. That is why expert after expert, witness after witness, 
Republicans and Democrats, say the United States is on an 
``unsustainable path.'' Yet President Obama's budget increases all 
spending every year, including discretionary spending, doubling the 
debt of the United States again, all the while raising taxes by almost 
$2 trillion. He makes no proposals to put Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security on sound footing--nothing. It creates a debt path where 
his lowest annual deficit in 10 years is $748 billion--that is the best 
year--with his outyear deficits increasing, so that by the tenth year 
his budget is scored as having a deficit of $1.2 trillion. Is that 
unsustainable or not?
  Is it extreme to say we have to change that course, that we can't 
continue it? Well, let me quote a few experts--not just Jeff Sessions, 
the Senator from Alabama. How about some people whose lives have been 
enmeshed in the debt of America? They seem to share the concerns, it 
seems to me, of the ``extremists''--the tea party people. What do the 
experts say? How about Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve? This is what he said:

       I think that the type of budget agreement that was put 
     together by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles is the type of 
     budget that will be passed by Congress.

  It doesn't look like that is so, unfortunately. He goes on to say:

       The only question is, will it be before or after the bond 
     market crisis?

  Is Alan Greenspan an extremist? He said, also, a few weeks ago that 
we could have a debt crisis in our country in 2 to 3 years.
  Bill Gross, who heads the world's largest bond fund at Pacific 
Management, eliminated government-related debt from his flagship fund. 
They no longer have any U.S. Treasury bonds. This is what he wrote 
recently:

       If the USA were a corporation, then it would probably have 
     a negative net worth of $35-$40 trillion once our ``assets'' 
     were properly accounted for. . . . No lender would lend to 
     such a corporation.

  Is Bill Gross extreme?
  Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson said:

       We believe that if we do not take decisive action, our 
     Nation faces the most predictable economic crisis in its 
     history.

  Mr. Bowles, before the Budget Committee, March 8, was asked how and 
when that might happen by Senator Conrad, our chairman. He said:

       The problem is going to happen. It is a problem we are 
     going to have to face up to in maybe 2 years, maybe a little 
     less, maybe a little more.

  Simpson said this:

       I think it [the crisis] could come before 2 years.

  Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, when asked about the 
Reinhart-Rogoff study--which said when debt reaches 90 percent of GDP, 
the economy of a nation slows down noticeably--and I believe Rogoff and 
Reinhart will be testifying before the committee tomorrow. When asked 
about their analysis, that 90 percent--your debt equals 90 percent of 
your gross domestic product, your economy is slowed and it pulls down; 
and we are already at 95 percent, heading to 100 percent by September 
30--Mr. Geithner said it was an excellent study. He didn't say this is 
an extreme study. He said this:

       In some ways . . . it understates the risks, because it is 
     not just that countries that live with very high debt-to-GDP 
     ratios are consigned to weaker growth; they are consigned to 
     the damage that comes from periodic financial crises as well.

  Is Secretary Geithner extreme? Is Admiral Mullen extreme? Senator 
Conrad, our chairman, is very concerned about the trajectory we are on. 
On March 15, at a Budget Committee hearing, this is what he said:

       I believe our Nation is in peril. We are hurtling toward a 
     fiscal cliff. . . . We are clearly on an unsustainable 
     course.

  Pete Domenici, who was part of the Rivlin-Domenici debt commission, 
which was similar to Bowles-Simpson, and was also the former chairman 
of the Budget Committee in the Senate, said this:

       I have never been more worried for my country.

  Are Senator Conrad and Senator Domenici extreme? I think not.
  Only three bodies can propose spending plans. The White House budget 
has been submitted. It would double our debt, surge our interest 
burden, increase spending at every level, and raise taxes 
substantially. Tomorrow we will have the House plan. It will be 
released by Budget Chairman Ryan. It is the most serious attempt ever 
made to solve America's spending and debt problems while saving 
critical programs, such as Medicare--saving those programs. They are 
beginning to default now.

[[Page 5035]]

  What does the Senate plan to do, the Democratic Senate? Doing nothing 
seems to be the plan. We have not seen a budget proposal and haven't 
had a hearing set for the markup of a budget proposal. I doubt that the 
President's plan will be brought forward in its present form because it 
would receive not many Democratic votes and, I suspect, no Republican 
votes. I don't know.
  The Senate has to do something. We have to propose a budget and be 
engaged in the process. We can't stick our heads in the sand. We cannot 
be in denial. Is the President going to change? Is he going to all of a 
sudden take responsibility for the fact that we may be heading to a 
fiscal crisis that could surge unemployment, surge interest rates, and 
place this Nation in financial risk? We have not seen it yet.
  If he does not act, what will our Senate Democratic colleagues do? I 
call on them to step up and represent their constituents, to do the 
right thing. We have to do the right thing. We cannot continue on this 
course.
  In my view, American leaders have no higher duty, no greater moral 
responsibility than to take all the appropriate steps to protect the 
good people we serve from a clear and present danger--a danger that has 
been detailed to us with clarity and repetition by some of America's 
finest leaders.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first, let me say how refreshing it is to 
hear the Senator from Alabama, as scary as it is, to tell the truth 
about the problem we have. When I tell people back in my State of 
Oklahoma--I refresh their memories. I remember in 1996 standing at this 
podium--right here--when the Clinton budget came out for fiscal year 
1996. It was a $1.5 trillion budget. I said a $1.5 trillion budget is 
impossible to sustain. And yet the budget the Senator from Alabama was 
talking about was the budget of this President--and, of course, with a 
majority in the House and the Senate--that actually has a deficit that 
is greater than the entire budgets around the entire United States of 
America in 1996. That is the deficit. That is what my 20 kids and 
grandkids are going to have to pay for.
  When you use statements that are real and cannot be denied--and that 
is, that this President in the 2 years he has been here has increased 
the debt more than all the Presidents before him, from George 
Washington to George W. Bush--it is not believable. That is what makes 
it so difficult because people think: How can this possibly be? And 
yet, it is. That is the reality.

                          ____________________