Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this amendment would call for the level funding of nondefense--my amendment earlier today was nonveteran discretionary spending--by leveling the funding for 2 years and having a 1-percent growth for 3 years. This is reasonable and responsible, No. 1. No. 2, let me recall to our colleagues the stimulus package that we passed a few weeks ago, which increases nondefense discretionary spending by an average of 30 percent over the next 3 years. We are not cutting our spending for discretionary accounts this year. We are seeing them surge. But in light of the stimulus package, this will be an excellent way to contain spending and save $200 billion over 5 years.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, this is a dangerous exercise we are in. I want to say a couple of things. The surging of debt and interest payments is not due to an expectation by the Senate or the President that we will be in a recession or in an economic slowdown. This is the only year they are scoring us as having negative growth. The President expects 3 percent next year and 4 percent the next and 3 years which is robust growth. Those are the kinds of numbers that President Reagan and President Clinton had in their best years. So that is not why we are going deeper and deeper in debt with a $1 trillion 1-year debt in the 10th year. It is because of spending. States are facing financial crisis. This year States are expected to reduce their spending by 4.1 percent. Are they going to disappear from the face of the Earth? No, they are making some tough decisions. They are wrestling with costs, fraud, accountability, efficiency, productivity. We need to be doing that instead of throwing money at this problem. I suggest that, with the huge surge of stimulus funding, we ought to keep the baseline level for 2 years. We will be spending huge amounts of money--65 percent more nondefense discretionary budget authority in the first 2 years with the stimulus money pouring into the system. So I suggest we could achieve a significant improvement in our long-term fiscal situation by saying during this time of stimulus spending we will have a 2-year freeze and then we will go up to a 1-percent increase. Flat spending does not require us to savage anybody's budget. The power is given to our appropriators to work out exactly how some programs might take more than others. Others could still get an increase. But fundamentally we need to set here, as a principle, we are going to have a budget that actually contains baseline spending and it will save $226 billion over 5 years. I project it would save at least that much in the second 5, maybe more because the baseline of our budget would not have gone up so much. What about this interest on the increasing debt? It amounts, today, in 2009, that every household is paying to the Federal Government $1,435, just to pay the $170 billion in interest. That number in 5 years, 2014, will increase to $3,433 per household, to pay the interest on the debt. With interest rates increasing as we expect--unfortunately as they are going to be doing with this inflationary budget--the number may well be twice that in 10 years. That is an unsustainable path. I propose we take this step. It is a rational step in light of the huge stimulus package we passed--without any cutting of total expenditures but an unprecedented increase in our expenditures would still occur with flat funding, level funding for 2 years and 1 percent for 3 years. I think this is a rational approach we could be proud of. Yesterday the Wall Street Journal noted that nations such as the United States and the United Kingdom will be tempted to use inflation to pay their massive debts. Households in the United States are among the most indebted in the world. People on fixed incomes would be most hurt by inflationary rates. Other nations might also continue to borrow, creating more nations seeking to borrow more and more money, therefore having to raise interest rates to get people to buy their debt, which could mean that the estimate that in 2019 we would be paying 5.5 percent on our Treasury bills would probably be low. In fact, it could be much higher. Indeed, Mr. Rogov was quoted in the Wall Street Journal. He is at Harvard. He was the chief economist for the International Monetary Fund. He predicted--hold your hat. This is something new. He predicted that inflation in the United States could hit up to 10 percent in the next 3 to 5 years, all because of this incredible spending spree we are on. Let me say this to my colleagues. This country is going to come out of this economic problem. We don't have to spend irresponsibly now. We have already spent an incredible amount of money in the stimulus package. Our baseline budget needs to start getting frugal, to challenge us to get more for less in the Federal Government. The best way the U.S. Government can help the American people and the American economy is to use every dollar our Government gets wisely, to get the best possible return for it. You will not get that kind of return throwing money around as rapidly as we are throwing it today. In fact, I think it is a general acknowledgment that the surge in spending under the stimulus package, plus 7, 8, 12 percent increase in general spending, will throw so much money so fast that our Presiding Officer, who doesn't like waste, fraud, and abuse, is going to have a lot to do to watch out for it because, like her, we have been prosecutors and we know that you have dangers out there in spending money unwisely.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have filed and call up amendment No. 772 and ask that it be the pending business.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as so often has been said, we are on an unsustainable path of taxing and spending and borrowing. The numbers are larger than anything we have ever seen before in the history of our country. We have dueling charts and different views and obfuscation and spin and talk and all that kind of thing, but the bottom line is that our debt is surging under this budget--President Obama's budget and the Senate budget and the House budget--to a degree we have never seen before. I think that much is not disputable. President Bush had a $412 billion deficit at the time of the recession he inherited and the war in which we found ourselves. Then it dropped until 2007 to $161 billion. This Congress, responding to the President's requests--without my vote--added another $150 billion and sent out the checks last spring, which did nothing good for the economy, although everybody was glad to get the free money from Washington. That caused us to reach $455 billion in deficits for that year--the largest in the history of the Republic outside of World War II. This year, the deficit will be $1,800 billion--four times that. Next year, we will be over a trillion. The Congressional Budget Office scores President Obama's 10-year budget as averaging over $900 billion in deficit each year--almost $1 trillion in deficit each year--with no plan to bring that down. In fact, it surges in the 10th year to $1.2 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO is our group, a bipartisan office, though the Democratic majority hires them. But basically we have a good group, and they are honest numbers. So that is what we are looking at. To say President Bush's $455 billion deficit he had in his last year--which every dime of that was appropriated by the Democratically controlled Congress--somehow excuses the path we are on today is unbelievable. The year before last, he had $161 billion. They are going to average $900 billion. What does it mean in terms of interest? Most people can understand this. When you borrow money--and we have to borrow the money. That is where we get the money. It doesn't drop out of the sky. If we print it, it debases the value of the currency. So we are borrowing. That is what we plan to do, to borrow the money and pay interest. This year, interest on our over $5 trillion debt is $170 billion. This chart shows the trend of the interest this Government will pay each year on the debt we are now adding to each year in unprecedented record numbers. It goes from $170 billion in 10 years to $806 billion. This is a thunderous alteration of our financial situation. This is not politics; this is the President's budget as scored by the Congressional Budget Office. These are not my numbers but CBO's numbers. I know the budget we have today on the floor is a 5-year budget. They didn't like the looks of the President's 10-year budget, so my colleagues cut it to a 5-year budget. There is nothing in this 5-year budget that suggests there is any effort to contain the surging deficit in the outyears, which continues to surge. There is nothing in the budget that suggests we are going to control entitlements or any other spending. In fact, Mr. Orszag, who used to be CBO Director but who is now the President's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, says the Senate budget is essentially ``98 percent of what the President wanted.'' So it is essentially the same budget. It puts us on the same path. You can spin it any way you want to, but that is true. Those of us here in the body know that. Anyone who is sophisticated about it understands what is happening, and it is very troubling. The President proposed an 11\1/2\-percent increase in domestic nondefense discretionary spending this year. That is a thunderous number, particularly in light of the fact that we just passed, a few weeks ago, a stimulus package that added $800 billion in spending on top of all of the fundamental baseline spending we have. Scored over 10 years, that is $1.2 trillion based on the interest to it. So our colleagues in the Senate Budget Committee thought that didn't look good and it was easier, I think, to just propose a 5-year budget so they wouldn't have to deal with these numbers out here. No changes were made that would have actually created any real reduction in those numbers. They propose, instead of an 11-percent increase in domestic discretionary spending, a 7-percent increase. That is on top of the stimulus package. Surely we all know that every penny of that stimulus package was paid for by increased debt. We are already in deficits, so when you add another $800 billion, where do you get it? You borrow it. You know the House is not outside of this game. They are in the game too. What does their budget do on nondefense discretionary spending? Their budget projects an 11\1/2\- to 12-percent increase in discretionary spending. They passed their budget. So if we go to conference with this bill, the Senate will be at 7, the House will be at 11 or 12, the President is at 11 or 12, and I suspect we will come out with a budget that increases by about 10. Let me just note that an 11\1/2\-percent increase over 7 years doubles your money. You know the rule of 7: If you have 7 percent on your money, in 10 years it doubles. Here we are talking about a rate of increase that will double nondefense discretionary spending in 10 years--probably considerably less than that. That is why the baseline funding is important. I have to note, in all frankness, that our Senate budget is less honest--I will use that word for lack of a better one--than the President's. The President scored the cost of fixing the alternative minimum tax for 10 years, which he says will be about $600 billion. The President also scored the cost of fixing our doctors' medical payments that, if we do not put money in, will drop down 20 percent. Our Senate budget doesn't fix that. So that is maybe how they make the numbers look a little better. But I want to say these numbers are huge. Madam President, what is the status of our time?

Mr. SESSIONS. I wish to be notified when I have 6 minutes remaining.

Mr. SESSIONS. I believe the issues we are talking about today are not insignificant. They represent the direction the President of the United States wants this country to go--which is huge spending without compensating cuts, with tax increases but not enough to cover it--and that this is an unsustainable path. This amendment would be a significant step in the right direction. With the stimulus package that has already been passed this year, we will still have sizable increases in discretionary spending across the board, and we will be able to carry on all requirements of our Government without having to spend this much of our children's money. Maybe we won't have to pay $806 billion a year in interest, when our education and highway budgets will each be about $100 billion. The education budget and the State general fund budget in Alabama, for the teachers and schools and highways and police and the Governor and the legislature--all of that is less than $10 billion a year and we are talking about $806 billion in interest? It is not responsible. I thank my colleagues for giving this amendment their serious consideration. I believe it is the right step and the right direction. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, first, I want to repeat the situation in which we find ourselves. My colleagues are quick to say President Bush spent us into bankruptcy, that he did all this reckless spending and that is the problem we have today. President Bush, in my opinion, did spend too much money and the debt was too high during his 8 years in office. Last spring, I voted against sending out $160 billion in checks. I didn't think that was a good policy. The Democratic majority here supported that steadfastly, overwhelmingly. Spend, spend, spend is what we have been seeing over there over the years and, in fact, with this big majority they have, and on the budget, Republicans are not able to take the heat, Republicans are not able to say to my colleagues, they have the votes, they can pass whatever budget they want. What I do want to say is that these are some accurate figures about the Bush budget: His worst deficit in 2003 was after 9/11, after he inherited an economic slowdown. The tech bubble had burst. When he took office, the day he took office, the Nasdaq had already collapsed and lost half its value. We were in a recession. Then we were attacked 9 months later, and the money got spent. At one point we ended up with a $412 billion deficit. We thought it was horrible. But in 3 years, that deficit was reduced until fiscal year 2007, when we had a deficit of $161 billion. We worked it down and were heading in the right direction. Then last year he sent out those checks and we had an economic slowdown and both Houses, controlled by the Democrats, voted overwhelmingly to spend another $160 billion to stimulate the economy. It didn't work, and we ended up with a $455 billion deficit. In the third year of the Democratic majority in the Congress and in the Presidency of Barack Obama and not all of this money can be traced to him, but much of it can--our deficit this year will not be $455 billion. It will not be $800 billion. It will not be $1 trillion. It will not be $1.4 trillion. It will be $1.8 trillion this year. Nothing has ever been seen like this before, ever. Next year, it will be over $1 trillion. In the outyears of the President's 10-year budget, it will be increasing the annual deficit $1 trillion. In fact, in the 10th year of his budget, according to our own Congressional Budget Office, basically hired by the Democratic majority here, they are scoring the deficit that year to be $1.2 trillion, added to the other. That is why this irrefutable chart shows that the debt goes from $5 trillion to $11 trillion, doubling, and then tripling in 10 years. That is not sustainable, as our Budget chairman has said. Mr. President, I see my colleagues are on the floor. I will be pleased to have a discussion with them about the reconciliation process. Let me just say this: In a time of economic hardship, when families are struggling to pay their bills and businesses are laying off people in order to survive, the last thing we need are major tax increases. Raising taxes hurts the family budget and kills jobs. Yet the President's budget contains the largest tax increase in American history, $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Again, I note that the deficit is not because we are not increasing taxes. We are increasing taxes. The spending is so great it still triples the debt.

Mr. SESSIONS. And, Mr. President, how much time is left on the Boxer amendment?

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be pleased to.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. The unanimous consent request would be in harmony with the budget resolution that came out of committee and in harmony with Senator Conrad's expressed personal views, would it not?

Mr. SESSIONS. No. In fact, few pieces of legislation this Senate has ever considered will have as much broad-based complexity and impact on our economy as a cap-and-trade system, period. That is why Senator Byrd, the conscience of the rules of the Senate, said: Using the reconciliation process to enact major legislation prevents an open debate about the critical issues in full view of the public. Health reform and climate change are issues that in one way or another touch every American family. Their resolution carries serious economic and emotional consequences. The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation . . . to enact substantive policy change is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role. That is what Senator Byrd, the Democratic Senator who wrote the reconciliation bill and who has written a book on the rules of the Senate, has stated. Mr. President, I have one more unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that it shall not be in order to consider any reconciliation bill in the Senate that raises energy prices.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I believe I still have the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am not aware of that. Maybe some of my colleagues might have heard that, but my understanding is that our leader says it might be included. In fact, he went so far as to say the revenue that would surge into the Treasury from the cap-and-trade could be used to finance health care. So that is a matter that is important to us. If the Senator shares my concern, I find it odd that he would object--or Senator Boxer would object to language in this resolution calling on us not to accept it.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have the floor, and I would be pleased to yield for a question from the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is a good question, and I will be pleased to answer our chairman. No, it did not, and I think that was the chairman's preference, his stated preference, and other Democrats on the committee did not want this reconciliation language in the Senate budget. But the language is in the House budget. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, has said it is not off the table, as you know, that this might be included in the final conference package. And as you know, since it is in the House language, Senator Reid will appoint the conferees, a majority of the conferees. And if he so says, the language will be in the final package that could come before the Senate, which terrifies people who believe in the great historic role of the Senate. That is what our concern is today.

Mr. SESSIONS. I think the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee is correct. Having read the House language on reconciliation, it appears to me, quite clearly, that if it is accepted in final passage of the bill, after conference, it would give the Senate the power to enact cap-and-trade or health care legislation without the normal processes of the Senate. Would the ranking member not agree?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, do I still have the floor?

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to yield for a question. I have another request to offer.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say to Senator Boxer, we will have more in-depth discussion of the cost of this program, but it is not without cost. The President and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget have admitted clearly there will be costs of very large amounts passed forward to our constituents. No. 2, and since it is such an incredibly monumental, colossal intervention and tax on the American economy, it certainly needs more debate than the limited hours that would be given under the budget process. That is what we were asking, that it be treated in the normal order of business and not expedited with a simple majority vote and a limited number of hours of debate. That is what the objection is to.

Mr. SESSIONS. I believe the Senator is absolutely correct. In other words, the House can pass anything on a simple majority, and Speaker Pelosi has a pretty good machine over there. They can pass whatever they want to pass. They do not need reconciliation. Why did they put reconciliation in their bill? They put it in there because it could be accepted in the final conference report and give the power to the Senate to use it to deny the historic debate rules of our Senate. Wouldn't that be a logical conclusion?