[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17108-17110]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           LIMITING SPENDING

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, something special happened earlier 
today. An important principle is being established in the Senate, and 
that principle is that we will adhere to the budget agreement we made 
with the American people 16 months ago. In other words, we agreed, in 
at least certain accounts, to have a limit on spending. Spending will 
still increase every year over 10 years, but not as much as it would 
have increased. We agreed that we would abide by the limit and we would 
not spend more than that.
  We have had four consecutive bills brought to the floor of this 
Senate--cavalierly, I would suggest--directly in violation of the 
spending limits we agreed to just a little over a year ago. As a 
result, I or some other Member of the Senate made a budget point of 
order. That budget point of order said that the legislation before us 
violates the budget limits, it spends too much, and we object.
  Each time, our Democratic leadership moved to waive the budget point 
of order. To forget the budget. To spend above the budget. To not worry 
about the budget. Just spend the money because this is a good bill, 
they said. It has good proposals, and anybody who opposes it is against 
these good proposals.
  So we now have had four votes and for all four of those votes, the 
Senate has said: No, we are not going to waive the budget. We are going 
to live within the agreement of spending we reached just last year.
  There is no reason these bills couldn't have been brought in within 
the budget. There has been no reason they shouldn't be within the 
budget. Some were not over the budget spending by much, but we have to 
adhere to that principle. I have been very proud that Members of this 
Senate in sufficient numbers have said: No, we are going to honor the 
promise we made to the American people, and we are going

[[Page 17109]]

to do that, and we are not going to bust the budget.
  So I think it is sending a message, and the message needs to be 
received.
  Initially, the spin in this body has been, Oh, Senator Sessions and 
his objectors don't want any good legislation to pass. They are just 
using the Budget Act to block it.
  But I think we are changing that now, and I think the American people 
are going to see what has happened. We have had seven votes on the 
budget. The last four have been successful in enforcing the budget. I 
think the American people are going to start asking, why are you, 
Senator, voting to waive the budget every single time? Didn't you agree 
to certain spending limits? Every time a bill came up, why did you vote 
to spend more than you agreed to spend, spend more than you told us you 
were going to spend?
  I think that is the message that ought to be coming out of here. I 
will go a little further. If somebody has to have legislation passed, 
don't blame the people who raised the budget point of order; blame 
yourself if you don't bring it to the floor in a way that does not 
violate the budget. That is important. I think that is being 
established now, and that is what I think we should expect of anyone 
who wants to move legislation in the U.S. Senate. If a Senator wants to 
get the vote and get the legislation passed, be sure they comply with 
the agreement we made.
  What agreement was that? Sixteen months ago, in August, the debt 
limit had been reached, and it was put off and delayed, and we got to 
the very last minute, and they reached this secret agreement--not 
publicly as it should have been, but we reached an agreement, and the 
agreement included at least some limits on spending. I didn't like the 
way it was done, but it did propose certain limits. It exempted 98 
percent of Medicare spending from being cut. It exempted the food stamp 
program. Medicaid was totally exempted from any cuts. But many parts of 
the budget were controlled, had their spending levels controlled by the 
budget. As a result, the agreement was passed and the debt ceiling--the 
limit on the amount of money that can be borrowed by the U.S. 
Government--was raised by $2.1 trillion.
  We are now borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and the 
Congress can limit, as the Constitution provides, how much the U.S. 
Government can borrow. We had just about reached that limit. Spending 
was going to have to drop 40 percent--right across the board, perhaps, 
unless the debt limit was raised. So we raised it so we could continue 
to borrow. But the promise was that over 10 years, the level of 
spending would be reduced by the same amount that we raised the debt 
limit.
  So we raised the debt limit by $2.1 trillion, and spending was 
promised to be reduced over the next 10 years by $2.1 trillion. Now we 
have already spent that $2.1 trillion. I hate to tell my colleagues but 
by January and February, this body is going to be right back here 
dealing with the question of hitting the debt limit again. This year, 
it looks as though we will have another deficit well over $1 trillion. 
In fact, the first 2 months of this calendar year were extraordinarily 
bad--almost $300 billion in debt in the first 2 months. If we continued 
at this rate, the deficit would be the largest ever in the history of 
the Republic. So something needs to be done about that.
  We made an agreement the last time we increased the debt limit. For 
us to go back on that, to not follow the budget agreement before the 
ink is dry on it--before barely a year is gone--to continue bringing up 
bills that violate that agreement, then the American people would have 
a right to have no confidence in us and to wonder what is going on: You 
promised us you were going to reduce the growth of spending, and as 
soon as the shoe starts getting a little tight or the belt starts 
squeezing, you cut and run, Senators.
  So far, at least in recent weeks, we have been doing rather well on 
this path of saying we will adhere to the budget agreement. I think on 
each one of the votes, we have had some Democratic support, but it is 
mostly Republicans that have held to the budget.
  Where are we today? We are talking about the fiscal cliff. The 
President campaigned around this country, and he said: I have a 
balanced plan, and that balanced plan is going to have so much in 
spending cuts and so much in tax increases, and it needs to be 
balanced. You Republicans have to have more tax increases. Our country 
needs to get itself on a sound financial path. And I have a deficit 
reduction plan.
  He ran a television advertisement in the last months of his campaign 
that said: I have a plan to pay down the debt. Earlier this year, his 
budget director came before the committee and would not disavow the 
claim that the President has a plan to pay down the debt. I would just 
say that is one of the greatest financial misrepresentations ever, that 
the President of the United States would tell the American people: 
Don't worry, elect me, I have a plan to pay down the debt. He has no 
such plan--nothing close to it.
  Under the score of the Congressional Budget Office, over the next 10 
years, we will add $9 trillion in debt to the deficit of the United 
States.
  That is almost $1 trillion a year for 10 years in additional debt. It 
goes down some in the midyears, but in years 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, the 
deficits go up every year. That is not what I thought the President was 
talking about or, I think, the American people thought he was talking 
about when he said: I want a plan that will pay down the debt. I am 
going to raise taxes and we are going to pay down the debt and we will 
have spending cuts also.
  What is it we now know about his plan? This is the essence of it, as 
shown on this chart I have in the Chamber. This chart is an outline of 
the President's deficit reduction plan. This is what the President is 
proposing to do. He started off a few weeks ago at $1.6 trillion in new 
taxes. Now he is talking about $1.4 trillion, I understand. That is the 
latest iteration of the tax increases: $1,400 billion in tax increases.
  Where will that money go? Will it change the debt course of America? 
Will it put us on a sound path? Can we go home at night and say: Wow. I 
am glad they finally got their act together.
  Let's examine what they are proposing. They are proposing to spend 
above the BCA, Budget Control Act, limits I just talked about that we 
agreed to only 16 months ago. Those limits include the sequestration of 
$1.2 trillion in spending. Those limits are in law. The law would have 
to be changed to avoid these cuts. The President proposes to change the 
law and to eliminate $1,200 billion of those cuts--$1.2 trillion off 
the table--that is 60 percent of the cuts that were agreed to when we 
raised the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. It would wipe out 60 percent 
of it just like that. That is new spending above the law in effect 
today, busting the limits I just mentioned. Busting the limits that we 
have been successfully enforcing.
  In addition to that, he has no funds to pay for the doc fix, also 
known as the sustainable growth rate for doctor payments. If we do not 
fix the sustainable growth rate, physicians will have a 25 percent or 
so cut in their reimbursement rates for doing Medicare work. For many 
of them, it is half the work they do. Such a reduction could not be 
tolerated, so it has to be fixed and the President knows that. It costs 
about $400 billion to fix it but the President provides no money for 
that. That cost must be added to the spending in his plan.
  The Social Security contribution holiday, or payroll holiday, is 
another is more spending he doesn't include, that has to be accounted 
for. If we do not pay as much into Social Security as we would 
otherwise, then the U.S. Treasury has to borrow that money and put it 
into the Social Security trust fund. People get more money in their 
paycheck but less money goes into Social Security. That is another $110 
billion in spending in the President's plan.
  The Administration wants to spend $50 billion more on transportation 
and $30 billion more on an unemployment insurance extension.
  Overall that totals $1,790 billion in new spending in the President's 
plan. Do they have any reductions in spending? Yes. They are talking 
about $400

[[Page 17110]]

billion in mandatory spending reductions. Most of that, apparently, 
will be reducing--maybe $300 billion of it--payments to providers in 
Medicare and Medicaid--providers: that is your doctor and your 
hospital--cut them some more. They were already cut deeply when the 
President's health care law passed. Whether that will ever stick, I 
have my doubts.
  But let's assume it does stick. That would mean the President's plan 
results in $1,390 billion in higher spending--$1.39 trillion. Remember 
he wants new higher taxes of $1,400 billion. Recall, under the current 
path, under the current spending limits in the Budget Control Act, we 
are increasing the debt by $9 trillion over the next ten years. Under 
the President's plan, whereby he raises taxes $1.4 trillion and raises 
spending $1.39 trillion, we would add to the debt $8.99 trillion. What 
does it mean? It means we are going to have a major tax increase and 
virtually the same amount of new spending--no net cut in spending but a 
major new increase in spending of $1.39 trillion. That is a fact, and 
it is a very troubling fact.
  I would add one more thing. I see my colleague is here. I believe the 
President of the United States should not lull the American people into 
believing that he has a plan that is going to pay down our debt or get 
us on a sound financial course. He has two goals, it seems to me: raise 
taxes and raise spending. That is exactly what this plan does. It has 
no reform of Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid or food stamps--the 
largest and fastest growing entitlement programs we have--no plans to 
fix any of that. He refuses to talk about that, saying anybody who 
talks about that just does not like old people and does not care about 
America.
  We need some leadership. We need some honesty. We need a President of 
the United States who will look the American people in the eye and 
explain to them we are living beyond our means. We do not have the 
money to continue to borrow 40 cents of every $1 we spend. We cannot 
continue on this path, as expert after expert has warned us.
  I will just say, I am proud that, again, today this Senate--at least 
a good, solid minority--stood firm--and said: No, we are not going to 
waive the budget. We are going to stand by the limits on spending that 
were part of the Budget Control Act.
  But I am not pleased how this whole process is going right now with 
Speaker Boehner and the President. It looks like it is not likely to 
lead to any changes in our debt course. Even after raising taxes $1.4 
trillion, if the President had his way, we will still be on basically 
the same debt course. How can we allow this opportunity to get away 
from us? We are going to raise taxes big time yet not use any of it, in 
effect, to pay down debt. The question is, will we reduce the annual 
deficits that will average almost $1 trillion a year for the next 10 
years and get worse in the outer years?
  We have to deal with that. There is no escape from that. There is no 
way we can get around it. Any mature person who loves this country 
knows we have to confront it. It cannot just be done by raising taxes. 
We are going to have to reduce spending in this country. Cutting 
spending is not going to hammer the economy. We do not have to throw 
people in the streets, but we need a sustained effort to reduce the 
growth in spending in this country. If we just do that, we would 
surprise ourselves that we could get on a sound course before too many 
years.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

                          ____________________