Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the amendment of the junior Senator from Tennessee would lower the nondefense discretionary cap established in the Budget Control Act by $20 billion in order to offset transfers from the general fund necessary to replenish the highway trust fund. This amendment is a clear violation of the Budget Control Act we agreed on less than a year ago. In simple terms, the amendment would impose a 4-percent cut to nondefense discretionary spending in order to pay for a shortfall in mandatory spending.

I wish to remind my colleagues that discretionary spending will rise at a rate less than the rate of inflation over the next decade, and that is according to CBO. Mandatory spending, on the other hand, is slated to rise at three times the rate of inflation. Clearly, if there is a desire to offset one area of mandatory spending, the place to find such an offset should be on the very same mandatory side of the spending ledger.

In an op-ed published in the Washington Post yesterday, Senator Corker said that finding an offset for the highway trust fund was a small step toward fiscal responsibility and that we should all support this amendment. But in the opening portion of the editorial, the Senator noted the solid bipartisan support in the Senate for a balanced approach to real deficit reduction. This balanced approach would include revenues, mandatory spending, and discretionary spending.

I agree with the Senator that only a balanced approach would truly solve our long-term challenges. Yet, in this amendment, what do we find? Cuts. Nothing but cuts to nondefense discretionary spending. No revenues, no mandatory spending, just the same approach we have seen again and again from our Republican colleagues--cut discretionary now, and we will do other things at a time to be determined later. Even the Ryan budget did nothing to Social Security or Medicare for 10 years. But the cuts to discretionary spending and to Medicaid Programs that save the lives of hundreds of thousands of elderly and children living in poverty took effect immediately, not in 10 years. And that is the approach of this amendment.

Clearly, there was an opportunity here to present a balanced approach. The Senator could have proposed modest cuts to spending, with increased revenue and changes in the rules that would lead to a fully funded highway trust fund for years to come. But that would require hard work and compromise, and this amendment requires neither.

Across-the-board cuts to discretionary spending are easy. This amendment is one page. Change one number, and that is it--we can all go home and say what a great job we have done cutting down. But the truth is, when it comes time to implement these cuts, agencies will be forced to look at reductions in force, at deferring desperately needed maintenance and repairs, and if you were considering upgrading your technology to better serve the American people, you can forget about it. Four percent is no small matter, coming on top of flat budgets for the past 2 years and with no increase for inflation or population growth.

As with so many amendments we have seen this past year, nondefense spending is again targeted not because it is good policy but because it is an easy policy. As I have done on each of these past occasions, I once again urge my colleagues to reject these unreasonable and reckless cuts and to vote no on the Corker amendment.

Madam President, if I may, I would like to speak on another amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, last September we rightly rejected a Coburn amendment not much different from this one. Senator Coburn claims that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce duplication, but in reality it would just give a $10 billion reduction in discretionary caps regardless of whether there actually is $10 billion in discretionary savings. In addition, there is an existing rescission authority in place, thus making this amendment on reducing duplication redundant.

This amendment is a backdoor attempt to lower discretionary spending caps agreed to by the Budget Control Act. So we should not violate the BCA, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source