[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 12, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5365-S5367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FIRST 100 DAYS

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in recent days, the White House, the news 
media, and many in this Chamber have taken the opportunity to reflect 
on the first 100 days of President Barack Obama's administration. I 
rise today to offer my comments and evaluation in light of this 
milestone.
  Admittedly, it is somewhat arbitrary to use the 100-day point in a 
Presidency as a time for evaluation.
  Indeed, success in the first 100 days doesn't guarantee success in 
the next 100 days or for the rest of a Presidential term. Likewise, 
struggles and failures in the first 100 days do not necessarily 
predicate similar troubles in the future. It is certainly the case 
that, as with most administrations, the defining moments of this 
current President are yet to be written.
  That said, President Obama's first 100 days have provided us with 
some unique insight into this President and how he intends to govern. 
It is this insight that informs my comments here today.
  The President came into office facing unprecedented expectations. 
While some of these expectations may have been unfairly placed upon him 
by some starry-eyed supporters who believed him to be a politician, a 
movie star, and a religious figure all in one, he brought much of the 
pressure upon himself. President Obama campaigned on a platform of big 
promises, not the least of which was a promise to change the tone here 
in Washington and move the country past the bitter partisan divides 
that has kept us polarized in recent years.
  But as any reasonable person observing U.S. politics will concede, we 
are not on that path yet.
  The supporters of the President will argue that he cannot accomplish 
such

[[Page S5366]]

a daunting task alone and I tend to agree with them. However, so far, 
the President has done very little on his end to make good on that 
promise and that has been his biggest failing during the first 100 
days.
  The problems began right out of the gate when the Congress debated 
the SCHIP reauthorization language. I was an original author of the 
SCHIP program and had been one of its strongest supporters. In fact, 
over the years, a number of Republicans in this Chamber--including 
myself and Senator Grassley--had endured a lot of criticism among our 
more conservative constituents over our support for the SCHIP program.
  During the 110th Congress, we worked with the Democratic majority to 
forge a bipartisan compromise in order to ensure widespread support for 
reauthorizing this program. This included some common-sense proposals 
to ensure the program was an efficient use of taxpayer funds. Yet, when 
the 111th Congress convened, the President and his supporters in 
Congress left that compromise on the side of the road and instead chose 
to push through a more expansive and liberal version of the bill. In 
the end, the bill passed on a vote divided on partisan lines.

  So, in the earliest days of his administration, the President was 
presented an easy opportunity to place unity and bipartisanship ahead 
of a far-left Democratic agenda and, unfortunately for the SCHIP 
program, he balked and, in doing so, he set the tone for the early 
months of his Presidency.
  Shortly thereafter, the President came to Congress with a proposed 
``stimulus package'' at a pricetag of nearly a $1 trillion. Although it 
was eventually reduced to $790 billion, the ``stimulus package'' 
basically read like a wish-list of long-time Democratic policy 
priorities and had very little to do with actually stimulating the 
economy. For example, small businesses, which create 70 percent of the 
new jobs in this country, went virtually unnoticed in the President's 
``stimulus'' bill, which focused more on expanding the Federal 
Government and providing ``tax credits'' for millions of Americans who 
don't pay any taxes.
  The President had an opportunity to work with Republicans on the 
``stimulus'' and include ideas that are proven to have immediate 
economic impacts--like reducing the highest corporate tax rates in the 
industrialized world to keep businesses in the U.S. or tax credits to 
address the housing crisis.
  Instead, he chose to cut Republicans almost entirely out of the 
negotiations and was content to have the support of only three members 
of the minority voting in favor, one of whom officially joined the 
majority earlier this week.
  Almost as disappointing as the substance of the bill was the 
President's tactics in debating the ``stimulus.'' Rather than 
acknowledging sincere policy differences between Democrats and 
Republicans, he accused the Republicans of wanting to do nothing, which 
was anything but the truth. This too has become an unfortunate, yet 
commonly used, tactic used by the Obama administration.
  The partisan recklessness continued into the debate over the 
President's budget. I have been in the Senate now for 33 years and I 
can say without reservation that President Obama's first budget is the 
most poorly crafted budget I have ever seen. In 1 year, the President's 
budget will quadruple the Federal deficit--That is the case even if you 
use the President's own estimates. Following the President's budget 
will create more debt than was created under every President from 
George Washington through George W. Bush combined. It also contains the 
largest tax increase in history of our union. And, under the Obama 
budget, government spending could end up as high as 40 percent of the 
GDP within the space of only a few years.

  In order to assuage such concerns--or at least in order to pretend to 
do so--the President has claimed that his budget will cut the deficit 
in half over 5 years. So, he will quadruple the deficit in 1 year--but 
we don't have worry because, 5 years from now, he will cut that deficit 
in half? Does anyone really think the President was considering his 
promises of bipartisanship when drafting this budget?
  It is not only the size of the budget, but its priorities. Like the 
stimulus bill, the President's budget reads like a policy manifesto for 
far-left Democrats. Worse still, the President and congressional 
majority have declared their intentions to use the budget 
reconciliation process in order to enact major pillars of their 
domestic policy platform, including an expansive government-run health 
care program and an energy tax euphemistically referred to as ``cap and 
trade.'' These are bills the President couldn't get passed through 
regular order, even with the large Democratic majorities. So, instead, 
he seems willing and able to force them through with little substantive 
debate, leaving the minority completely out of the equation.
  Once again, it appears that the President's promise of increased 
bipartisanship came with an expiration date.
  I wish this was all, but unfortunately it is not. The President's 
failure to live up to his promises of bipartisanship extends into the 
national security sphere. One of his very first actions as President 
was to order the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison facility. Of 
course, he didn't have an alternative plan in place, only the stated 
desire to close the prison and to cast aspersions on his predecessor's 
efforts to protect our country's national security. Such inane 
details--like what we will do with these dangerous captives once the 
facility closes--could wait until later, the President had a political 
statement to make.
  Just 2 weeks ago, President Obama opted to selectively declassify 
memos drafted by the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush 
administration relating to CIA interrogation tactics. Instead of 
providing the American people real context about these tactics--their 
successes and failures--the President opted to placate those on the far 
left who want nothing less than an indictment and trial of our former 
President. He did this for the stated purpose of clearing the air and 
moving forward, yet he left open the possibility of prosecuting former 
Bush officials whose only alleged crimes were to offer legal opinions. 
One would think that a President who is truly interested in 
bipartisanship and moving forward would avoid further politicizing such 
contentious issues. Yet, as a result of the President's lack of 
leadership, we may be looking at months and years of show trials in 
order to pacify those on the far left who would criminalize policy 
differences in order to exact political vengeance on the Bush 
administration. I hope that this will not be the case and that the 
President will change course on these issues.
  Now, to be fair, the President has made some good decisions during 
his first 100 days and I am not unwilling to give him credit where it 
is due. For example, he ended the ban on Federal funding for embryonic 
stem cell research. I have supported taking such measures for many 
years as I believe that this research has the potential to 
revolutionize medicine in this country. This was, in my view, a wise 
decision on the part of the President and I have commended him for it.
  Likewise, the President exercised true leadership in helping Congress 
to pass the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, a new law that will 
revolutionize volunteer service in this country. This bill was a long-
time coming and had the support of a bipartisan coalition here in the 
Senate. Beginning with his address before Congress in February, 
President Obama got involved in helping this legislation move forward 
and, as a result, many people throughout the country will be given more 
opportunity to serve in their neighborhoods and to do much of the heavy 
lifting in fixing our Nation's problems. I have both publicly and 
privately thanked the President for his support of the Serve America 
Act.
  Sadly, such instances of true bipartisanship have been few and far 
between.
  Some may believe I am being too hard on the President or that my 
concerns are just sour grapes over my own partisan disagreements with 
the President's agenda. But, from the day he was inaugurated, I have 
continually expressed my willingness to work with President Obama. 
After all, this is my country too and I want him to succeed. My record 
in being willing and able to work with Members of both parties speaks 
for itself. But, in my opinion, success in addressing the major issues 
facing our country--including health care, energy, and our crippling 
entitlement programs--will require the work

[[Page S5367]]

and ideas of both parties. So far, with very few exceptions, the 
President seems all too willing to keep his own counsel and that of his 
fellow Democrats on how to address these issues. This is not the type 
of government he promised on the campaign trail and, quite frankly, I 
think it has led to policy results that, at best, have to be considered 
questionable.
  Going forward, I hope that, instead of cursory gestures and empty 
statements encouraging bipartisanship, President Obama makes a real 
effort to listen to and accept ideas from both sides of the aisle. That 
will take real courage and leadership and, thus far, I don't know that 
he has demonstrated much of either.

                          ____________________