Mr. President, this will be the fourth time this year the Senate will be voting on an amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama which seeks to constrain discretionary spending. Each one of the amendments has been similar. This is the…
Mr. President, this will be the fourth time this year the Senate will be voting on an amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama which seeks to constrain discretionary spending. Each one of the amendments has been similar.
This is the fifth time I have risen to speak in opposition to this amendment, and I must admit I find myself somewhat at a loss for words. There are only so many ways to highlight the negative impact of this amendment on current services and the President's initiatives, while explaining how it does not address real deficit reduction.
Fortunately, the Senate has voted this amendment down three times already. I thank my colleagues for rejecting this amendment in the past, and I certainly hope we will do so again.
There are a number of reasons why this amendment is a bad idea. Let me remind my colleagues, again, of several of those reasons:
The Senator from Alabama uses last year's budget resolution as his starting point. He believes that since Congress passed a budget resolution last year with a nonbinding target for this year, that we should now make that target binding.
But, since this amendment was originally proposed, the Budget Committee has reviewed the President's budget request for fiscal year 2011 and has marked up a new budget resolution. In doing so, the committee has changed their recommendation.
Since the committee with jurisdiction has determined the levels that it believes the Congress should keep to, I am not sure what advantage the Senate would have in agreeing to the notional targets in last year's resolution.
I have stated this before, but it is important to note again for my colleagues. The President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2011 allows growth in Homeland Security; this amendment does not assume growth. This could result in fewer border patrol agents and firefighting grants and would weaken TSA's ability to respond to threats to aviation security.
The President has requested more than $732 billion in his budget for national defense for fiscal year 2011, including the cost of war. This amendment only allocates $614 billion.
As I stated several weeks ago, over the 3 years covered in this amendment, the caps that would be put into place are $141 billion below President Obama's 3-year plan, including $50 billion below defense and $91 billion below nondefense spending.
The Sessions amendment is $82 billion below the budget resolution which the committee adopted, and includes a cut of $50 billion from Defense, over 3 years. In the near term, for fiscal year 2011, the Sessions amendment will require the Appropriations Committee to cut defense spending by $9.5 billion and nondefense spending by about $11 billion.
Such across-the-board cuts make for a great photo opportunity for appearing to reduce the deficit, but the consequences could be severe. The lack of direction is reckless. Important needs would go unmet. This amendment could result in cutting research funds for traumatic brain injury, worsening the shortage of air traffic controllers, cutting afterschool centers and veterans employment programs, to name just a few.
This week, the President has asked Federal agencies to identify 5 percent in spending cuts for fiscal year 2012 to areas that are not critical to their overall mission. A more thorough, deliberative approach such as this is clearly more sensible than slashing budgets across-the-board with little or no consideration of the consequences.
As I have said now several times before, a critical flaw in this amendment is it does nothing to seriously reduce the deficit. It fails to address the two principal reasons for the government's current financial distress.
The two drivers behind the growth in the debt are unchecked mandatory spending and the huge tax cuts for the wealthy passed, with no offsets, by the previous administration. This amendment fails to address either of those two problems. It simply does not get the job done. Further, it hinders the efforts of those who do seek to address the deficit in a comprehensive manner.
The fact of the matter is that many of our Republican colleagues are more than willing to put a cap on discretionary spending. At the same time, they refuse to support policies that would ensure the Nation has sufficient incoming revenue to make a real impact on the deficit, even though mandatory spending has increased significantly for the last few years.
We all know that it is impossible to achieve a balanced budget simply by freezing discretionary spending. In fact, we could eliminate all discretionary spending increases for defense and nondefense spending and still not even come close to balancing the budget.
And again, I remind my Democratic colleagues that if we cut discretionary spending without also reaching an agreement on mandatory spending and taxes, we will find it impossible to get those who do not want to address revenues to come to a meaningful compromise.
I would also remind my colleagues that the deficit reduction commission is working, as we speak, to come up with a comprehensive solution to the current systemic imbalances we face.
And in the fall, they will make their recommendations to the Congress, and we have a firm commitment to bring those recommendations up for a vote.
The Senate has already rejected this flawed plan three times this year. The flaws remain, and the Senate should reject it a fourth time.
This amendment fails to address the real causes of our deficits and the national debt in a fair and comprehensive manner. It would provide far less funding than either the President or the Senate Budget Committee recommend.
For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues once again to vote no.