[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 156 (Tuesday, October 16, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12886-S12888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have, as the saying goes, some good news 
and some bad news. The good news is the budget deficit has dropped in 
the last year from 1.9 percent of the gross domestic product of this 
Nation down to 1.2 percent--a historic low level for the budget 
deficit. But as Members of the Senate know, the budget deficit is just 
a year-to-year statement of what the financial obligations are of the 
Federal Government. The figure that is the bad news is the debt; that 
is, the bills, if you will, owed by the American people to finance the 
cost of Government. The bad news is on September 27--a short time ago--
this Congress voted to increase the debt ceiling for the United States 
of America from $8.965 trillion to $9.82 trillion.
  Now a ``trillion'' is more money than any of us can possibly imagine, 
but let me break it down to what it means for every man, woman, and 
child in America. It means today, every man, woman, and child in 
America owes $30,000 of the Federal debt--the cost of the Federal 
Government doing business.
  So instead of passing on to our children and grandchildren the kind 
of prosperity and opportunity to start on a level playing field and to 
reach their God-given potential to achieve their dreams, we are 
burdening our children and grandchildren today, if we do not do 
anything about it, with a minimum of $30,000 of debt.
  The fact of the matter is, it is actually worse than that. As to 
Social Security, we understand from the Social Security trust fund, 
they will be running red ink by the year 2017, unless we do something 
about that. In other words, as to the Social Security taxes that are 
deducted from your paycheck and mine and everybody's in America to help 
pay our share of Social Security, the money that has to be paid out 
will exceed the amount of money coming in as a result of those Social 
Security taxes by 2017, if we do not do anything about it.
  In addition, Medicare is even in worse shape. By 2013, the amount of 
money coming in to pay for Medicare for seniors will be exceeded by the 
outflow of funds. So instead of being in the black and being able to 
sustain itself, both Social Security and Medicare are on the road to 
insolvency and worse.
  Just when you think the story, the financial picture, could not be 
any worse, there comes the revelation that actually Congress is 
spending the current surplus for Social Security, for Medicare, for 
Civil Service Retirement, and the Transportation trust fund, spending 
money that is a surplus now and issuing debt to be paid by our children 
and grandchildren--in other words, funding out of the Civil Service 
Retirement Fund, Medicare, Social Security, and the Transportation 
trust fund, taking money out of that to pay the current bills of the 
Federal Government.
  This is a dire financial circumstance that only the Federal 
Government could ignore. No family, no business, no one in America 
could run their finances this way and get by with it, except for the 
Federal Government because the Federal Government can continue to issue 
debt to borrow from surpluses in one fund to pay for bills in another. 
Frankly, this is a train wreck we are beginning to see in slow motion 
taking place right before our eyes and will be played out over the next 
few years, unless we act in a more fiscally responsible way right now.
  The President has vetoed the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program, and I want to talk about that in a minute. Thursday, I believe 
the House will vote on whether to override that veto and there has been 
a lot of misconceptions about that and I wish to clarify that with my 
remarks.
  But I want to suggest to you that before Congress votes to expand 
current programs, even successful programs, beyond their original 
scope, such as the SCHIP program, which has been enormously successful, 
targeted at low-income kids whose families earn too much to qualify for 
Medicaid but not enough to buy private health insurance--before we 
expand that, not by 40 percent, which I support, but by 140 percent, to 
cover adults in 14 States, and with a combination of waivers that can 
be issued by the executive branch of Government to potentially cover 
people up to 400 percent of the poverty level, displacing private 
health insurance and taking individuals who currently have health 
insurance and replacing it with Government--read ``taxpayer''--
subsidized free health care for people, families making up to $82,000 a 
year--before Congress should attempt to expand programs in this sort of 
irresponsible manner, in my view, we ought to take a look at the 
programs that have been rated by the Federal Government in terms of 
their effectiveness and look at opportunities for cost savings there.
  I think the American people do not resent paying their fair share of 
taxes for efficient Government and for a consensus role in what 
Government should be doing as opposed to the private sector. What they 
have a right to resent is the fact the Federal Government wastes their 
money and grows Government at the expense of the private sector in ways 
that crowd out the private sector.
  I would like to suggest to my colleagues they look at a Web site 
called Expectmore.org. This is a Government Web site that, through the 
Office of Management and Budget, rates various Federal programs and 
agencies. What they have concluded--the Office of Management and 
Budget--is that out of 1,016 programs they have evaluated, 22 percent--
almost a quarter of them--have been rated as ineffective or, perhaps 
even worse, we cannot tell whether they are working as intended--22 
percent.
  Only 18 percent have been rated as effective; 31 percent, moderately 
effective; and 29 percent, adequate. This is a miserable scorecard for 
the Federal Government in terms of the taxpayers' dollars actually 
delivering the kind of services we should expect Government to deliver, 
efficient use and respectful use of the taxpayers' dollars.
  Before we talk about growing any program--even the SCHIP program--by 
140 percent to cover adults and people in the upper middle class with 
free taxpayer-subsidized health insurance, should we not try to 
eliminate some of these ineffective programs that have been 
inconclusive in terms of the evaluation?
  As it turns out, I have introduced legislation, along with some of my 
colleagues, designed to do this, building

[[Page S12887]]

on the successful sunset commission programs in Texas and elsewhere, 
which periodically--say every 10 years or so--take an agency and 
evaluate it and make the agency justify its continued existence, start 
with a zero-base budget and justify each and every dollar they use in 
order to perform that function, in order to make sure it actually is 
effective.
  In my State of Texas, the sunset commission has been responsible for 
eliminating a number of different programs and saving taxpayers a lot 
of money. We can do the same thing for the Federal Government in 
Washington if Congress would merely have the will.
  Another idea, another proposal I have made, along with some 
colleagues, is modeled off of the enormously successful Base 
Realignment and Closing Commission, the BRAC Commission. This, as my 
colleagues know, is a way for Congress to make sure we eliminate 
unneeded and unnecessary military installations. When trying to do it 
on an individualized basis, is very hard because there is always a 
constituency for maintaining a military base someplace, even if it is 
not needed by the military. But the BRAC situation is an independent 
commission that collects recommendations for all of the unneeded bases 
and presents it to Congress for an up-or-down vote. No cherry picking, 
no putting some in and taking some out. We have to vote on all of them 
up or down. That BRAC Commission has been enormously successful in 
eliminating unnecessary, unneeded, and costly military installations. 
We need to do the same for the Federal Government. Before we spend any 
more of the Federal taxpayer dollars, I think we need to show the 
taxpayers we are being good stewards of the money they faithfully pay 
to the Federal Government for their tax obligation.
  In addition to not taking care of this growing crisis I have 
described, Congress continues not to keep its fiscal house in order. It 
is common knowledge that we have not passed a single appropriations 
bill for the current fiscal year, and we are operating on a continuing 
resolution that Congress passed because we have not been able to take 
care of the simple matter of paying the bills--again, something no 
family or business could get away with. But the Federal Government is 
guilty of fiscal mismanagement, once again, by failing to pass a single 
appropriations bill and sending it to the President.
  What this is leading up to, as we all know--and this is no secret--is 
likely pulling together all of the various appropriations bills, all 12 
of them, or some combination of them, into an omnibus appropriation, 
which somebody told me the other day is Latin for ``watch your 
wallet.'' We are going to have a huge game of chicken between the 
President of the United States, who wields the veto pen, and the 
Congress over how much excessive spending Congress is going to be able 
to pass against the President's stated intention to veto excessive 
spending.
  Again, this is not for the benefit of the American people; it is, 
rather, for partisan political benefit--a big game of chicken and 
potential Government shutdown because Congress isn't taking care of its 
business and its fiscal house is in a state of disarray. The American 
people are enormously skeptical, and they have every right to be given 
what I have described a moment ago. What they want us to do is quit the 
partisan game playing and trying to score points, and simply work 
things out in the best interests of the American people, being 
respectful of their tax dollars and not wasting 1 penny more than we 
must.
  This is especially true in the SCHIP program, the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program, which I described. It is currently, again, on 
a continuing resolution. It is currently in effect and not in any 
danger whatsoever of coming to an end. There is bipartisan support for 
the continuation of this successful program, if it is intended and does 
affect children of low incomes, up to 200 percent of poverty. There is 
not a political consensus; indeed, there are those who object--and I am 
one--to a radical expansion of this program to cover adults in 14 
States and to go up to, along with the Presidential waiver, 400 percent 
of the poverty level for a family of four making $82,000 a year. At 
that level, for every two people added, one of them will get 
Government-subsidized health care by dropping their private health 
insurance--an unhealthy development, to say the least.
  Here again, Congress is up to its old tricks. It relies on an 
unsustainable funding stream, a regressive tax that hits low-income 
Americans the hardest, and a budget gimmick that will demand that 
either Americans' taxes be raised by 2012 to continue the program or 
children will be dropped from the program.
  I have a prediction to make. There is, as Ronald Reagan said, no such 
thing as a ``temporary'' Government program from the Federal 
Government. I believe he said that a temporary Government program in 
Washington is the closest thing we have to eternal life here on Earth. 
I think he has been proven right.
  What I would hope that the leadership--Majority Leader Reid and 
Speaker Pelosi--would do is sit down with Republicans and with the 
President and try to work out our differences. As I said, everybody 
supports continuation of this program. I am willing to predict, without 
equivocation, that this program will continue; it will continue to help 
poor children--and it should--on a bipartisan basis. We should not have 
a game of chicken where, as Leader Reid said and Speaker Pelosi said--
Senate Majority Leader Reid said this:

       If the President says let's sit down and talk about it, it 
     is something that is not going to happen.

  He said that in Congress Daily on September 28, 2007. Later, he said 
on that same day:

       We have compromised all we are going to compromise.

  What we see here is more political theater and partisan point 
scoring, as opposed to working together to try to find ways to resolve 
this impasse. We can do it. It is strictly a matter of political will 
and, frankly, I think it is what the American people want us to do. 
They are sick and tired of Congress being dysfunctional when it comes 
to meeting the very clear needs of the American people. I have 
described some of them. But at least we can try to work out this SCHIP 
impasse in a way that is fiscally responsible and meets the intended 
goals of this important Children's Health Insurance Program.

  Today, a Gallup poll reported, for what it is worth, in USA Today 
that 52 percent agreed with President Bush that most benefits should go 
to children and families earning less than 200 percent of the Federal 
poverty level, about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40 percent in 
the Gallup poll reported today in the USA Today said benefits should go 
to families earning up to $62,000. As I said, there is a provision for 
a waiver that can go up even higher if, for example, President Clinton 
is in the White House after the next election.
  The Gallup poll says 55 percent of those polled are very or somewhat 
concerned that the program would create an incentive for families to 
drop their private health insurance.
  At a time when the American people are taxed at huge levels, you can 
see that this chart says ``living essentials squeezed by Federal 
taxes.'' The American wage earner has to work 120 days a year to pay 
all their State, local, and Federal taxes, while they work 62 days a 
year to pay housing, 52 days a year for health care, 30 days for their 
food, and 30 days for their transportation. But, again, it is 120 days 
to pay Uncle Sam and State and local taxes.
  Should we not be taking care of our finances in a way that does not 
pass a huge IOU down to our children and grandchildren that we will 
never repay? Should we not quit robbing from the surpluses of Social 
Security and Medicare today rather than using that money to finance 
other programs? Should we not be eliminating ineffective programs or 
those programs that have been rated as inconclusive in terms of whether 
they are actually effective? Should we not take a more restrained 
approach to the growth of Government programs, including programs that 
have worked, such as SCHIP?
  Instead of a 140-percent increase and transforming it into something 
that bears very little similarity to what Congress originally intended 
when they

[[Page S12888]]

started this program, should we not take a more restrained and careful 
approach?
  Rather than drawing lines in the sand and threatening the termination 
of benefits of their health care to poor kids, shouldn't the majority 
leader, the Speaker of the House, the President of the United States, 
and the folks on the Republican side of the aisle sit down and try to 
work it out?
  As I said, everybody in Congress supports this program, virtually 
without exception. The only difference is between those who believe 
this is an irresponsible, radical expansion of the program beyond 
recognition, and one that others have offered--including me--is a 
reauthorization of the program designed to meet its original target, 
and that is poor and low-income kids.
  I hope the leadership will listen and make a sincere attempt to try 
to meet in the middle on this. The children of this country will 
benefit, and I think the American people will be enormously relieved.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for leading 
the national dialog on health care. I think Americans expect us to 
address this issue and not just fight about it, as the Senator from 
Texas has said.
  This national discussion is bringing us to some agreement, at least. 
I think all of us have decided in Congress--or at least most of us--
that every American should have access to a health insurance policy 
they can afford and own and keep. Where we disagree is how we get to 
that point. I think the disagreement in this body goes to how we do 
that. Do we do it more like Canada did, where we say, OK, everybody 
needs to have insurance, so let's let the Government take it over; 
let's have Government-run health care?
  Some are saying the Canadian system works fine, until you talk to 
doctors and patients from Canada and find out that every year the 
waiting lines get longer, every year the program gets more expensive, 
and every year the health care is of less quality. So now the people in 
Canada who have the means come to the United States to get health care.
  The reason we have had such good health care in the United States for 
most of our history is that it has been done by private doctors working 
with patients, hospitals that are independent of Government; our free 
enterprise system has worked to a great degree.
  Government programs, such as Medicare and the program we are talking 
about today, such as the children's health plan, have helped those in 
need to buy health insurance and have access to health care. But for 
the most part, Americans have resisted Government-run health care.
  We do know in the early nineties there was an attempt to move totally 
to Government health care. When that failed, we were able to see that 
the advocates of Government-run health care believed the best way to 
get to Government health care was to do it one step at a time with the 
children first because it is very hard to vote against expanding health 
care for children.
  Certainly, all children should have health care. They should have 
health insurance. But the fact is, every American should have health 
insurance, and it is not good enough just to expand a Government 
program from covering poor kids to covering middle-class kids.
  We do not need to mistake the fact that this is moving us toward 
Government health care. If my Democratic colleagues get their way on 
this children's health bill, over 70 percent of the children in this 
country are going to have Government health care. What happens to them 
once they become adults we have not discussed. We need to help every 
American own a health insurance policy.
  What Republicans want to do is continue this children's health plan, 
to add additional funding to cover inflation and additional children. 
We have some good proposals. One of them, by Senator Martinez, would 
continue the program as it is but also offer tax credits to children 
and families who are 200 and 300 percent of poverty so they can buy 
their own insurance, believing that the best thing we can do for 
families in this country is to help them have insurance they can 
afford, own, and keep.
  There are other Republican proposals that we will be talking about 
that include tax credits for every family who buys their own insurance. 
It would also allow employers to give money to individuals to help buy 
their insurance. We do not do that now. Employers are not allowed to 
contribute to an individual's health plan.
  We also have proposals that would allow individuals to shop for 
health insurance all over the country. A lot of folks don't know that 
we don't allow that now. You can only shop in your own State.
  There is a proposal that would allow people who put tax-free money in 
a health savings account to use that money to buy their own health 
insurance plan. It is pretty amazing that as a Congress, we will not 
allow people to use their own health savings account to pay for health 
insurance premiums. And there are proposals to allow small businesses 
to come together to buy health insurance that is less expensive than 
when they buy it individually.
  There is a lot we can do as a Congress that does not cost taxpayers 
any money but would make it easier for individuals to have health 
insurance they can afford, own, and keep.
  I hope this debate will continue to open this issue in a way that 
Americans can really understand. The goal is that everyone has 
affordable health insurance, good health insurance. The goal is not to 
turn more and more of our health care and health insurance over to the 
Government because we know that won't work, we know it is not 
efficient, and we know the children we are trying to help are 
eventually going to have to pay the debt we put on their heads by 
paying for something we cannot afford.
  The fact is, we can get better health insurance, better health care 
for less money, if we do it with private health insurance just by 
helping individuals buy health insurance they can afford, own, and 
keep.
  We started the national discussion on health care. I hope as we look 
at this debate, specifically children's health care, that we will see 
it as part of a larger issue and decide today that it is not good 
enough just to get a few more children insured.
  Every American needs a health insurance policy, and we can do it, 
first of all, by taking down the barriers that Congress has put in 
front of individuals when they are trying to buy their own insurance, 
but we can also look at those in need. Whether it is tax credits or tax 
deductions, we can help every American have a health insurance policy 
they can afford, that they can keep from job to job and throughout 
their life. We can have better health care, and it is better for our 
future.
  I thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to speak. I yield the 
floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.

                          ____________________