[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15695-15696]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           SETTING PRIORITIES

  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, first of all, I wish to follow up on a 
comment my friend from Alabama just made on Social Security and 
Medicare. I think it is very important that we listen carefully to what 
he had to say, that if we do things that are so-called reforms--and I 
think there are many places where we could reform those programs--we 
should use those savings to save those programs. We shouldn't say we 
are going to have reforms in Medicare, more likely, perhaps, right 
away, then Social Security, and then not use those reforms to extend 
the life of these important programs.
  These are programs, we have told Americans--in the case of Social 
Security since the mid-1930s, and in the case of Medicare since the mid 
1960s--that people would be able to rely on. We see that those programs 
can be extended and adjusted and reformed, but I think our leader on 
our side of the budget effort who spends so much time trying to

[[Page 15696]]

make the case for the right kind of budget decisions is clearly 
pointing out that if we make savings in these programs and then use 
that money to fund other discretionary spending, is that the fair thing 
to do with Social Security or Medicare? I don't think so, and I think 
the Senator from Alabama has raised a very good point.
  As we try to figure out how to move forward this year, we need to be 
sure that savings are real savings, that they are not double-counted, 
that we are not saving money in one program that clearly should go 
toward the priority of that program rather than the other priorities we 
haven't yet set.
  This brings me to the topic of setting priorities. We had the 
opportunity to go to the White House--the Democrats yesterday, 
Republicans today--to talk to the President about how we move forward 
with the budget year, the spending year that has already started. When 
we were there, the President made it clear once again that we shouldn't 
negotiate, but on more than one occasion in the morning when we were 
there, the President said we shouldn't be allowed to negotiate for 
things we couldn't get or didn't get in the regular process.
  My view of that is there is no regular process. As the President said 
that, I thought, this is like pouring gas on a fire of frustration for 
Members of the Senate and particularly in the House who are frustrated 
that there is no process. There is no place earlier than a crisis to 
say: Let's debate these issues, let's debate these priorities.
  How many of the 12 spending bills for the year that began 11 days ago 
have we had on the floor of the Senate? One. One of the bills that 
should have been done starting in about last March and April and that 
should have been completed over the summer. That money would have been 
spent beginning October 1. Not one of the 12 was on the floor, and, 
frankly, it was a bill the majority leader had every reason to believe 
wouldn't pass if it was brought to the floor. Let's assume it would 
have passed. It still would have just been one of the 12 bills we need 
to run the government.
  So when the President or anybody else says we shouldn't use these 
crisis moments to try to get our priorities discussed, they are the 
only moments we have. They are the only time we have.
  I don't like government by crisis. I think it is very unfortunate for 
this Presidency that if we really look at how the government has worked 
in the last 5 years, it is from one crisis to another. If I could do 
anything to help President Obama pull away from this crisis management, 
I would be inclined to want to try to do that, particularly if pulling 
away from crisis management meant we were going to come back and have a 
fair debate between a divided Congress that leads to some way forward 
that can actually accomplish something.
  The idea that we won't negotiate at this moment--or the President, 
feeling that somehow he won't be held hostage to the debt limit--I am 
certainly going to vote tomorrow not to even move forward with this 
discussion for a $1 trillion debt ceiling increase with no discussion 
of what we are going to do to change our behavior.
  President Obama, to his credit, entered into a negotiation just 2 
years ago, in August of 2011, and in return for $2.5 trillion worth of 
spending cuts over a decade, he got $2.1 trillion in additional debt 
ceiling. Now, the President agreed to that in August of 2011 and then 
in October of 2013 says nobody should ever negotiate on the debt 
ceiling.
  Fifty-three times since 1978 we have had a change in the debt 
ceiling, and since 1978 more than half of those debt limits included 
legislation dealing with either spending or other matters.
  The President says: I will not put this on future Presidents, to be 
the President who goes forward with increasing the debt ceiling under 
some--with a negotiation.
  Well, every President since 1978 has had the same situation the 
President had in August of 2011, the same situation the Presiding 
Officer and I would have if we were going to get our line of credit 
extended and we had exceeded our line of credit. Whoever is going to 
extend that line of credit is going to say: What are you going to do to 
change the behavior that allowed you to blow through your last line of 
credit?
  The President and others will say: This is about America paying its 
bills. This is about wanting the current Congress to pay the bills it 
has incurred.
  Well, most of the bills that have been incurred weren't incurred by 
this Congress; they were incurred by past legislation. Sixty-two 
percent of the spending is now in last year--it will probably be higher 
in the year we are in at this moment--62 percent of the spending was 
mandatory spending. It was spending put in place by Congresses 
beginning in the 1930s, through the health care bill. That is mostly 
mandatory spending. The current Congress didn't get to vote on the 
health care bill, but more importantly, most of the current Congress 
wasn't alive when the Social Security Act passed. Many of the Members 
of the Congress and even some of the Members of the Senate were not 
alive when Medicare passed.
  This is the time for this Congress to look at those pieces of 
legislation and say: What do we need to do to adjust them to the future 
needs of the country? What do we need to do to adjust them to the 
current and future demographic realities of society? People live 
longer. People need these services longer. What do we do to make this 
work in a way that these programs can last?
  These are not programs put in place by this Congress. These are not 
bills incurred by this Congress. These are bills, in fact, for which 
this Congress and this President can decide we are going to look for 
these programs and be sure they last and look at these programs and be 
sure they can be paid for.
  That is exactly the kind of discussion we should be having when we 
ask the American people, through their Congress, to extend the line of 
credit.
  The idea that we will not negotiate on the debt ceiling or we will 
not negotiate on how to spend the money--if we do not negotiate on how 
to spend the money by bringing the appropriations bills to the floor, 
how are we supposed to negotiate and set priorities and let democracy 
work? I do not like democracy by crisis. Whatever we do in the next few 
weeks or months that it takes to finish out the year we have already 
started, what we should all do is commit ourselves for the year that 
begins next October 1 to be prepared for that like the Congresses until 
just 6 or 7 years ago generally were prepared at or near that date.
  When there was a government shutdown in 1995, six of the 
appropriations bills had been passed, signed into law, and all those 
parts of the government were working after a debate that provided 
funding.
  So I would just say, as I conclude, we need to move away from 
management by crisis, but we also need to understand that if we do not 
do the work the regular way, there is no other place to take a stand, 
there is no other place to have this debate. As to the President's 
sense that you could get this at some other point, there is no other 
point if the Congress and the President are not doing their job.
  I will just say, we should do our job, we should do it in a way 
people can see. We should do it in the small bites that the budget 
process is set up to allow us to look at and debate. We have not done 
that over the last 12 months. We have started this year in about the 
worst possible way. Hopefully, we will get through this and then 
resolve to do the work the right way for what begins 1 year from now. 
But at this moment, the President thinking we can just go ahead and 
move forward without negotiating is a wrong decision on the President's 
part.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________