Amending the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002

Floor Speech

Mr. President, for weeks, Americans have watched the debate about raising our Nation's debt ceiling. I know it is has been difficult and often frustrating to watch what is happening, but the discussion could not have been more important for the future of America. We have been talking, again, about whether we would increase America's borrowing limit.

In doing so, we have rightly focused on how to prevent a default on America's credit, but also, just as important, rather than just reflexively continuing to borrow money we do not have from Chinese bankers, how we are going to confront the fundamental behavior in Congress that has led us to this culture of borrowing and overspending.

I have said from the beginning of this debate that we owe it to the American people, and I owe it to my constituents in New Hampshire, to confront both issues--to avoid default and, finally, to confront our debt once and for all, and to change the direction in which we are headed as a country.

To address only default and to continue to kick the can down the road on making the tough decisions to fundamentally change the path we are on will surely lead to a downgrade of our credit rating. It will sap our economic strength and will lead to the insolvency of the greatest country on Earth.

While I appreciate the difficult work done by the Speaker of the House and our Senate leadership in coming up with an agreement that avoids default, I am unable to support a bill that delivers the largest debt ceiling increase in the history of our Nation but does very little to confront the underlying problems that have brought us here--problems that have led us to over a $14 trillion debt and which will increase in the next 2 years to over $16 trillion in debt.

I have not come to this decision lightly. I have had countless meetings over the last months and weeks with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to talk about this issue and how we can confront this crisis now. I have said from the beginning we need fundamental changes in the way we do business in Washington, including budget reforms, enacting a responsible budget.

I am a member of the Senate Budget Committee--the newest member of that committee--and it has been terribly disappointing to me that the Senate hasn't allowed the Budget Committee to do its work and come up with a budget for the United States of America.

So we do need fundamental budget reforms. I have said we need major spending reductions, and we need to reform our entitlement programs. I cannot in good conscience agree to a deal that continues to perpetuate the culture of overspending and borrowing in Washington.

In coming to this decision, I have asked myself several questions: The first question I have asked is, Does this agreement significantly reduce spending? Unfortunately, the answer is no. While it claims to reduce the deficit by $917 billion over the next 10 years, only in Washington would this be called a spending reduction. Because of baseline budgeting, a reduction of $917 billion in the deficit, as it is claimed, is no reduction at all. Over the next 10 years, under this agreement, we will spend over $830 billion more in discretionary spending.

So there is no reduction in spending. If you just look at the reduction from what we will spend in fiscal year 2012, it is really only a $7 billion reduction in spending between what we will spend in 2011 and 2012. We borrow $4 billion a day to sustain our government. So the spending reductions between what we spend in 2011 to 2012 is not even 2 days of borrowing for the United States of America.

Many of the cuts are in the outyears. And you know what happens in Washington when the cuts are in the outyears. Unfortunately, our history has been that they do not get done. That is why I am concerned about even the $917 billion claim in reductions, which is not a reduction in spending.

I have also asked myself, Does this agreement in any way reduce the size of government? We know this government has continued to grow even as State governments and families have made the tough decisions to downsize, to reduce, to live within their means. This deal does not cut or end one government program.

In March, the GAO came out with a report that identified hundreds of duplicative programs that happen here in Washington where we could save billions of dollars. My colleague from Oklahoma, Dr. Tom Coburn, has done the hard work of identifying hundreds and hundreds of duplicative programs where we could save billions of dollars. Yet this agreement does not reduce the size of government at all or end one of those programs.

Does it avoid a downgrading of our credit? Unfortunately, I think this agreement will also lead us to a downgrade. And why does that matter? Because it will hurt the economic strength of America and our economic growth, our borrowing costs. It will hurt our job creators when now more than ever we need to create jobs in this country and put people to work. Yet our failure to get our fiscal house in order here in Washington is hurting the hard-working people in New Hampshire and America.

The credit rating agencies and even the President's own fiscal commission have said that the minimum amount of debt reduction that we need over the next decade is $4 trillion just to stabilize our debt and to ensure our AAA credit rating is not downgraded. But with this agreement, even if everything happens and this congressional committee does all of its work, we will only see a maximum reduction of $2.4 trillion. And that is assuming everything in those outyears gets done, which we do not always have a good history of here in Washington.

Finally, does it change the trajectory of where we are going with our debt to preserve our country? No. Under this agreement, we will continue to about $1 trillion a year to our debt--a debt that is already $14 trillion.

It does nothing to strengthen our entitlement programs. We know from the trustees of Medicare that program is going bankrupt in 2024. We know from Social Security that program is going to be bankrupt in 2036. Yet we have not taken on that fundamental problem in this agreement. How do we reform those programs to preserve them for Americans that are relying on them and to sustain them for future beneficiaries?

While I appreciate that we are beginning to change the discussion here in Washington, I cannot support this agreement. I appreciate that it is very important that we avoid default, but I know we are better than this. I know we can do more to make sure we preserve the greatest country on Earth. We need to take on the fundamental problems, the chronic overspending in Washington. We cannot continue to say that a reduction is a reduction when it is not, when we are continuing to spend more money, because at home people look at that and say: Give me a break. That is not how I do my family budget.

We have to tell the truth to the American people and make the hard decisions. I know we can come together and get something done that will fundamentally change the direction in which we are headed. That is why I am disappointed about this agreement, because it does not do that.

We must do more than avoid default. We must save our country for the sake of our children. I have often come to this floor and talked about the fact that I am the mother of two children.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Ms. AYOTTE. I am the mother of a 6-year-old and a 3-year-old. This discussion goes beyond those of us who are serving right here; it is about what kind of country are we going to leave for the next generation. And I know I will not look my children in the eye and have them say: Mom, what did you do about it?

We have to solve this crisis now. I know we can. I look forward to working with my colleagues on behalf of the people of New Hampshire, to really rolling up our sleeves, finally cutting spending, and saving the greatest country on Earth.

Source