Highway Trust Fund Restoration
Floor Speech
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND RESTORATION -- (Senate - July 30, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I urge all colleagues to come together, as the American people surely want us to do, and adopt this amendment. I truly believe this amendment is the responsible way to address the shortfall in the highway trust fund.
This amendment funds the highway trust fund shortfall by using money from the already-passed stimulus bill. That is important because otherwise we are racking up yet more deficit and more debt on top of the mountains of
debt we have already accumulated to pass on to our children and grandchildren. This is important so that, yes, needed highway work can be done, particularly needed work in the midst of a recession, but it can be done without racking up yet more debt to weigh down the economy and burden our children and grandchildren.
I wish to make two central points about this idea and why this amendment is necessary. First, the level of debt we are accumulating is truly staggering. It is beyond our ability to get our hands around. This year alone, the deficit has surpassed $1 trillion. This year's deficit spending has gone beyond $1 trillion. By the way, we are not finished this year. It continues to grow. This year, we have racked up over $1.8 trillion of new debt because there is the $1 trillion in the normal year's spending plus the huge stimulus bill of $800 billion. In terms of racking up new debt to put on the backs of our children and grandchildren, there is $1.8 trillion of new debt this year. That is way beyond anything we have experienced in our lifetime. Just the trillion dollars of deficit spending rivals the sort of numbers we used to talk about not so long ago for the entire Federal budget.
But, unfortunately, it gets worse. It gets significantly worse because this Congress, over my objection, passed President Obama's budget, and that budget takes those mountains of debt I just described--at already sky-high historic levels--and what does it do? Does it work it down? No. It doubles that level of debt in 5 years. It more than triples that level of debt in 10 years. That is the path we are on, and that is the legacy we are handing to our children and grandchildren. That is simply completely irresponsible. To have this mountain of debt already accumulated this year, at historically high levels--$1.8 trillion accumulated this year alone, and it is growing--and then to have a budget plan that doubles that in 5 years and triples it in 10 years is inexcusable. In that 5-year period, this President will have racked up more debt than every predecessor President before him combined. We need to get off that path, and the American people know it.
The American people understand, through their common sense, that this is a recipe for disaster. All of us as parents want to hand our kids a better world, a world of more opportunity, a better future than even we had handed to us from our parents. Yet we are on a path to do exactly the opposite and hand our kids an enormous burden, hand them a tomorrow full of clouds and uncertainty, particularly dominated by this threat--central fundamental economic threat--of deficit and debt. We cannot accept that. Yet here we are on the floor with the other side proposing to fund the highway trust fund with--guess what--more debt, more borrowing, more borrowing by the government from whoever buys our debt, including wonderful allies around the world like the Communist Chinese Government.
We need to get off this path, and this is one important step in doing that, saying: Yes, we will continue vital highway programs, but we will do it by taking from the already-appropriated stimulus funds. That is appropriate money that is already appropriated through the process. We will not do it by borrowing yet more money.
The other side has fancy arguments about: Well, this is really taking back a loan we sent the general fund 8 years ago. Let's make no mistake about it, that money is long gone. This is racking up more debt, purely and simply. For that very reason--because it is racking up more debt, because it increases outlays in this fiscal year--it has a budget point of order against it, which I will raise before our final vote. So if you need any further proof that the underlying bill requires borrowing yet more money, racking up yet more debt, it is nailed down by the fact that there is a budget point of order against the underlying bill, which I will raise.
The second critical reason we should adopt the Vitter amendment and fund highway projects from stimulus money and not rack up yet more debt goes to the nature of the stimulus and the attempt which has been very slow and very faltering of using those stimulus dollars to help revive the economy. Of course, that was the whole argument behind the stimulus: We are in a severe recession. We need to do something. We need to get spending and economic activity out the door. We need to hold down unemployment. That was the whole argument. From the very beginning, I did not think that would be the result. That is why I voted against the stimulus, both because of the nature of the spending--it is a lot of big government programs, not a lot of true shovel-ready infrastructure spending--and because of the timing of the spending. I thought from the very beginning that relatively few dollars would go out the door immediately and a lot of the stimulus money would not be spent for years. Well, unfortunately, all of that is coming true. Again, if you look at the nature of the spending in the stimulus and the timing of it, it leaves a lot to be desired.
I think all of us in this body, and Americans across the country, favored infrastructure spending as the centerpiece of the stimulus. Yes, let's do real, concrete, shovel-ready projects. Let's build roads and highways and bridges as the best example of a true, concrete, shovel-ready infrastructure project. I certainly strongly supported that element of spending as a way--not the only way but as a way--to help revive our economy.
Unfortunately, that type of project was never a major part of the stimulus bill as passed. In fact, if you take all of the roads and highways and bridges, all of that construction in the entire stimulus, how much of the bill do you think it is? Fifty percent? Certainly not. Thirty percent? Keep going down. Twenty percent? No. Ten percent? Try 3.5 percent. Mr. President, 3.5 percent of the entire stimulus focused on what the American people thought really could be spent to help stimulate the economy: shovel-ready infrastructure projects on roads and highways and bridges.
My amendment is a way to increase that part of the stimulus that goes to that project to increase highway funding through the stimulus, which I think there was a very broad consensus to do from the beginning, but it never got done in the stimulus.
The second big problem with the stimulus is the timing of that money. It has gone out the door very slowly. Of the entire $800 billion stimulus bill, which was supposed to be immediate relief for the economy--let's start turning the corner on this recession immediately passing that bill--today, months later, a half a year later, 10 percent has gone out the door. Only 10 percent has been spent. That is ludicrous.
Of that tiny slice that was roads and highways and bridges--the 3.5 percent--guess how much of that money has gotten spent. Mr. President, 1 percent of that. Not 1 percent of the whole bill, not almost a third of the 3.5 percent. I mean 1 percent of the 3.5 percent; in other words .035 percent of the entire bill--a meaningless amount. So let's increase the amount of money we take from the stimulus pot and immediately get it out the door for vital highway projects.
Because of those factors in the stimulus--the nature of the spending, which was never focused on real, shovel-ready infrastructure; only 3.5 percent going to roads and highways and bridges; and the timing of the money, which has been amazingly slow; only 10 percent of the stimulus spent right now and only 1 percent on roads and highways and bridges--what has been the effect on the economy? Well, of course, the effect has been slim to none.
This chart I have in the Chamber says it all. This graph is what the proponents of the stimulus bill say would happen to unemployment over time: We pass the stimulus, and it is going to help revive the economy. It is going to make sure unemployment peaks at less than 8 percent and then comes down. Well, unfortunately, the reality has been very different, because compared to this prediction by the proponents of the stimulus, this is the reality, as I show you on this chart. This is what unemployment has been doing in the last several months--going up and up and up, well beyond the peak that was predicted, reaching almost 10 percent today.
Again, this is the second fundamental reason we need to adopt the Vitter amendment, because the stimulus, as it was put together, is not
weighted nearly enough toward real infrastructure such as roads and highways and bridges, and it is not weighted nearly enough on spending now versus years from now. This Vitter amendment will help change that for the better. It will reweight the stimulus, at least at the margin, to more roads and highways and bridges and more spending now because we need it now in the midst of this recession now.
So again I urge all of my colleagues to come around and embrace and support this Vitter amendment. Doesn't it make sense to say we need to start now in terms of rejecting this path of more and more and more debt? Because the underlying bill, make no mistake about it, is funded by more borrowing, more debt. That is why a budget point of order lies against the underlying bill. I will raise that budget point of order before the end of our debate.
Secondly, doesn't it make sense to say: Look, the stimulus idea was about exactly this sort of spending? Americans across the country favor stimulus spending that is really focused on roads and highways and bridges and real infrastructure, things that are truly shovel ready. They do not favor big government waste programs and they do not favor spending 3 years from now because that is going to have no impact to get us out of this recession right now.
This amendment, again, will fine-tune the stimulus in the positive direction, toward spending on roads and highways and bridges, and virtually all of us support more of that spending, including the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. She had an amendment on the stimulus to do just that, which was opposed and defeated by the other side.
This amendment will also fine-tune the stimulus to get more money out the door now. Don't we need that? Only 10 percent of the $800 billion has been spent. Don't we need to front-load it a lot more than that to have any sort of significant positive impact on this recession?
Again, tragically, the unemployment figures say it all. The prediction: Peak at 8 percent, come down from there. The reality: We continue to go up and up and up--perilously close right now--toward 10 percent.
Again, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join together, to work together, as the American people want us to do, around a basic commonsense idea. Let's stop the debt. Let's stop racking up yet more debt, putting it on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Let's front-load the stimulus and do shovel-ready infrastructure now rather than big government projects 3 years from now.
With that, Mr. President, I yield back my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, let me briefly address some of the issues and misconceptions that have come up by focusing on four key points.
First, I believe the Senator from Illinois said: Why would we want to take anything out of the stimulus and stop job creation? I have a news flash: There is no job creation. Unemployment is going up. Again, unfortunately and tragically, the unemployment numbers say it all. This was the projection from the proponents of the stimulus about unemployment peaking at 8 percent and then coming down. Tragically, this is the reality. Joblessness goes up and up, toward 8 percent. So there is no job creation right now.
No. 2, the Senator from Illinois said: Why would we want to move money from one pocket into another pocket? That doesn't do anything. Well, it does a lot if the pocket we are removing money from is stuff that would not be spent until after 2011, and we move it to a pocket focused on real, concrete roads, highways, and bridges--spending that can be done now. That is a big change in terms of the type of spending we are talking about. It is a big change in terms of the timing of the spending.
The biggest reason for the stimulus having no significant impact on unemployment is the type and the timing of the spending. On the timing side, only 10 percent of the entire $800 billion stimulus has been spent to date. On the type of spending, only 3.5 percent of the whole bill was ever for roads, highways, and bridges. Only 1 percent of that--1 percent of the 3.5 percent--has been spent yet. So, yes, we are moving money from one pocket to another so as not to run up more debt. In the process, we are having a lot more immediate, positive impact on employment. That is very important.
Point No. 3: In direct response to the Senator from California, if she would like to wall off any stimulus money--the money for roads, highways and bridges and the money for flood control--and say the President cannot use that money in this transfer, I would be very open and supportive of such a second-degree amendment.
I did not do that simply to give the administration maximum flexibility in terms of working out those details. However, again, if the Senator from California would like to propose a second-degree amendment to wall off true highway funding or flood control funding, or whatever, I would be happy to support that.
Fourth and finally, I couldn't believe my ears, but I think the Senator from California said the underlying bill involves deficit reduction. Let's get real. I know Washington is a fairy tale world. I know things are turned upside down so often, like Alice in Wonderland, but the underlying bill involves racking up more debt, more deficit. That is the whole motivating factor of my amendment. The underlying bill does nothing but borrow more. Don't take my word for it; look at the fact that there is a budget point of order against the underlying bill which I will point out and raise for consideration by the Senate.
So the underlying bill clearly involves more debt. How could it not? We are taking money from the general fund to fill in the highway trust fund. Guess what. We are deficit spending in the general fund. We are already, through the general fund, racking up a deficit. So if we take money from there, we have to backfill that if we spend the same amount with more borrowing, more deficit, more debt.
Again, if we care about turning the corner on deficit and debt, this is the responsible amendment to support and the responsible approach to take. The underlying bill racks up more debt; the Vitter amendment avoids that.
Again, there is a budget point of order against this underlying bill about which, with the cooperation of the Senator from California, I believe she needs to make some introductory comments, but I will make that budget point of order now.
I yield the floor to the Senator from California.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I will make that point of order. The underlying bill is such a great deficit reduction that it would involve more borrowing and more debt and more mandatory spending. It would specifically increase mandatory spending and exceed the committee's section 302(a) allocation. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the bill pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source