Amending the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. President, I stand today to explain my reasons for voting against the debt limit increase we will be voting on in just about half an hour from now.

This is a crisis that America faces. It is an ongoing crisis that will neither be created nor eliminated with today's vote. It is a crisis that has been building gradually over the course of years--decades, in fact. It is a crisis that we certainly have known about ever since this Congress was sworn in in January of this year.

This is a crisis that threatens potentially every Federal program, from defense to entitlements, because as we continue to borrow more money as a nation, adding to the already almost $15 trillion we have accumulated in national debt--roughly $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in America; roughly $150,000 for every taxpayer in America--as we continue to add to that enormous debt, we get closer and closer to the unknown but nonetheless existing point at which we will no longer be able to borrow, at least not at interest rates that will make this kind of borrowing sustainable.

If interest rates were to go up even to their historically average levels, within just a few years we could be spending something closer to $1 trillion every single year. Just to pay the interest on our national debt, we could be paying more than we pay on Social Security in an entire year, more than Medicare and Medicaid combined, and more than national defense in an entire year. What happens when we get to that point? Where does that money come from? The reality is that every Federal program, from defense to entitlements, could see its coffers raided in an unfortunate Draconian display of fiscal irresponsibility if we continue to punt this problem and not to address it.

The legislation at issue today addresses this problem by perpetuating it. I am pleased, of course, that this legislation does certain things and has invigorated a new conversation on the sorts of strategies that need to be in place if we are ever going to address this problem on a long-term basis.

Some 7 or 8 months ago, there were still people in this town of Washington, DC, who were saying things along the lines of ``we need another stimulus package'' or ``we need more Federal spending of one sort or another.'' They are no longer saying that. Now the discussion focuses not on whether to cut but how much.

There is, of course, renewed discussion about the need for a balanced budget amendment. But talk is different from outcomes. What we need are outcomes. What we need is a fundamental change to the way we spend money in Washington. What we need is to restrict Congress's authority, granted by clause 2 of article I, section 8, of the Constitution, to incur debt in the name of the United States. That power needs to be restricted. The only way we can restrict that on a permanent basis, one that will bind not only this Congress but future Congresses that come after us, is through an amendment to the Constitution.

This legislation raises the debt limit by about $2.5 trillion. This is a recordbreaking sum. Not too many years ago,
when I was in high school, this was roughly equivalent to our entire national debt. Now, through one piece of legislation, we are increasing, expanding our already huge national debt by roughly that same sum, and it does not contain any permanent, binding structural spending reform mechanisms of the sort that would be necessary to make sure we get out of this problem, to make sure we end the problem we have created through Congress's reckless pattern of perpetual deficit spending.

That is why I have insisted since before I was even sworn into office that before we raise the debt limit, we need to pass a balanced budget amendment and submit it to States for ratification. Nearly every State balances its budget each and every year. It is not news when a State does this. I look forward to the time when it will no longer be news when Congress does the same.

There are significant cuts discussed in this legislation and proposed, but I want to be clear on one thing: Although these cuts are large on a long-term basis, on a short-term basis they are less so. On a short-term basis, within the next year, this proposes to cut about $7 billion out of the fiscal year 2012 discretionary spending budget. Some dispute this number and suggest, as some of my colleague have already, that, in fact, the fiscal year 2012 budget will spend $23 billion more. Others concede the point and say: OK, let's assume for purposes of this discussion that it does, in fact, cut $7 billion from what otherwise would be new deficit spending. Now, $7 billion is roughly equivalent to the amount of debt we have added to our total debt portfolio just in the last 30 hours or so, roughly the period of time that has elapsed since this legislation was announced late Sunday night until this very moment, because we are borrowing about $4 billion of new debt every single day. Stated differently, this amounts to less than two-tenths of 1 percent of a cut.

I do believe we have made progress. I commend our leadership for working so hard to focus the discussion on the need for cuts.

We have, unfortunately, had Democratic leadership in this body that has been bent on delaying the announcement of any deal as long as possible and preventing legislation such as the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act from coming to the floor, where it could have been subjected to an open debate, discussion, and amendment process, as well it should be. I regret the fact that it didn't come to that, the fact that that legislation, which could have solved this problem and would have put us on a path toward fiscal responsibility, toward ending this problem once and for all, was not even allowed its day in the Senate to be debated and discussed on the merits.

At the end of the day, we have to come to terms with the fact that the course we are on, from a fiscal standpoint, is utterly unsustainable, and adding more debt to our now-bursting portfolio of debt will only contribute to this problem--unless we adopt a balanced budget amendment. The time to do that is right now.

The American people overwhelmingly support a balanced budget amendment, to the tune of about 75 percent. To my great astonishment, some of my colleagues and even the President have suggested that a balanced budget amendment is somehow a radical idea--so radical as to be absurd and not worth considering--even though three out of four Americans believe we need a balanced budget amendment.

I will close by referring to a quote by a man named William Morris, who said this in the late 1800s:

One man with an idea in his head is in danger of being considered a madman; two men with the same idea in common may be foolish, but can hardly be mad; ten men sharing an idea begin to act, a hundred draw attention as fanatics, a thousand and society begins to tremble, a hundred thousand and there is war abroad, and the cause has victories tangible and real; and why only a hundred thousand? Why not a hundred million and peace upon the earth? You and I who agree together, it is we who have to answer that question.

It is not just one or two of us who have this idea in our head that we need to restrict Congress's borrowing power because it has been so severely abused over such a prolonged period of time; it is three out of four Americans. I urge my colleagues in the Senate and our counterparts in the House of Representatives to join the American people in at least the same proportion in supporting the idea that never again should we raise the debt limit without a balanced budget amendment in place.

This is a permanent, long-term problem. It requires a permanent solution. The only permanent solution is that which involves an amendment to the Constitution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source