[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 20, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18-S21]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it was exactly 1 year ago that Barack Obama 
was sworn in as President of the United States. He began by promising 
to launch a new era of responsibility, bipartisanship, and transparency 
at home and to improve America's standing abroad. That message appealed 
to

[[Page S19]]

the American people. The President came into office with high approval 
ratings, widespread support, and plenty of bipartisan good will in this 
Chamber. Taking stock now a year later, it is apparent the President 
has not delivered the change he promised. The President's approach to 
spending, debt, and big government has surprised and frustrated the 
American people. It is not what they bargained for. Much of the 
legislation introduced by the majority has passed on party-line votes 
and without the transparency he promised.
  On this 1-year anniversary, I want to talk specifically about the 
conflict between President Obama's campaign promises and the policies 
he has promoted during his first year in office.
  Despite his pledge to embrace fiscal responsibility, President 
Obama's domestic agenda has reflected a belief that big government and 
massive spending are the keys to promoting economic growth. From car 
company bailouts, to cash for clunkers, to a wasteful $1.2 trillion 
stimulus bill that failed to keep unemployment from topping 8 percent, 
as the administration claimed it would, Federal spending has soared. So 
has the national debt. President Obama said earlier this year that we 
cannot keep on borrowing from China, and that is true. So why does the 
President continue to advocate spending money that we do not have and 
will have to borrow? What ever happened to his campaign promise of a 
net spending reduction? Government spending grew by $705 billion in 
fiscal year 2009, an increase of 24 percent from 2008, and 
appropriations legislation enacted this year will increase spending by 
8 percent more in 2010.
  America's 2009 Federal deficit, which is the gap between total 
outlays and total revenue, made history--and not in a good way. It 
exceeded $1.4 trillion, which is the highest amount in history and more 
than three times as large as the biggest annual deficit during the 
previous administration.
  The recordbreaking budget President Obama submitted to Congress 
doubles the deficit in 5 years and triples it in 10. It also creates 
more debt than the combined debt of every President from George 
Washington all the way through George Bush. There is no way to blame 
President Bush for this situation.
  The total debt has reached an almost unimaginable sum--almost $12 
trillion. This week, the Senate will take up an increase in the debt 
ceiling, which is the total amount of legal U.S. debt. That increase 
will come on the heels of a $290 billion increase in the debt ceiling 
that was passed late last year and another increase that was passed 
early in 2009 to accommodate the stimulus bill. Interest payments on 
this debt are expected to reach $800 billion--just interest alone--$800 
billion per year by 2019. Clearly, we have not entered a new era of 
fiscal responsibility but, rather, quite the opposite.
  Of course, the most expensive piece of legislation passed last year 
was the health care bill. The $2 trillion-plus bill, the most 
consequential domestic legislation in a generation, was hardly a work 
of fiscal responsibility or bipartisanship. It passed both bodies of 
Congress on a partisan vote. The legislation will create a massive new 
entitlement at a time when America cannot afford its existing 
entitlement programs.
  The bill is filled with deals for special interests that President 
Obama said would be banned from doing business with his administration. 
Last week, for example, the White House reached a deal with labor union 
leaders to exempt, until 2018, union health care plans from a tax that 
will hit many other Americans.
  The bill also violates several key pledges President Obama made about 
health care reform--first, the pledge that it would be deficit neutral. 
Richard Foster, who is the Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare 
and Medicaid Services, estimates that under the reform legislation, 
national health spending will rise by $222 billion over the next 10 
years, and the Congressional Budget Office tells us that the Senate 
bill double-counts the savings from certain Medicare reforms. It uses 
certain funds to extend the solvency of Medicare by 9 years while 
simultaneously using those exact same funds to offset the cost of the 
bill. According to the Congressional Budget Office:

       To describe the full amount . . . as both improving the 
     Government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and 
     financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially 
     double-count a large share of those savings and thus 
     overstate the improvement of the government's fiscal 
     position.

  In short, this bill is not deficit neutral.
  The President also pledged that middle-income families would not see 
their taxes raised. This is the second broken pledge. As Republicans 
have explained repeatedly, this bill is packed with taxes that will hit 
many middle-income Americans, including seniors and the chronically 
ill. In fact, the Senate version contains a total of 12 new taxes.
  The third broken pledge relates to costs. President Obama said his 
health care bill would reduce costs. It does not. Costs for many 
families will actually increase thanks to a litany of new Federal 
requirements and mandates.
  This whole process has also shown that the President's professed 
commitment to transparency was nothing more than a campaign slogan. He 
promised at least seven times that the health care negotiations would 
be aired on C-SPAN, as he put it, ``so the American people can see what 
the choices are.'' But that didn't happen. As Speaker Pelosi reminded 
us, the President promised a lot of things on the campaign trail. Those 
who were not invited to the Democrats' secret negotiations did not know 
the details of the respective health care bills until just before each 
of them came out for a vote, and we are talking about bills that are 
more than 2,000 pages long and contain hundreds of hidden provisions.
  Even before the health care legislation is concluded, the President 
is proposing yet another spending bill, a second stimulus package. The 
stimulus bill--they call it a jobs bill now--that recently passed the 
House of Representatives would cost taxpayers $260 billion more in 
deficit spending. I do not believe the way to create jobs is to expand 
the size and expenditures of the Federal Government. I believe we must 
encourage growth in the private sector, not by taking money out but by 
putting money back in. It is understandable and unfortunate that job 
creators may be nervous about economic conditions. The economy is still 
shaky and new taxes loom on the horizon.
  After seeing the dismal employment report in December, a month in 
which the economy lost another 85,000 jobs, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a 
former chief economist of the U.S. Labor Department, advised the 
administration to ``press the reset button on economic policy.'' More 
specifically, she urged the President not to raise taxes, scale back 
Federal spending, focus on deficit reduction, and reject the new 
environmental regulations that will drive U.S. jobs overseas.
  I hope in the coming year President Obama will consider more sensible 
domestic policies so that we can rein in the out-of-control spending 
that has characterized his first year. This would truly be change we 
can believe in.
  I would also like to discuss the tension between rhetoric and reality 
in the President's foreign and national security policies.
  Throughout the campaign, President Obama pledged he would improve 
America's reputation abroad and repair supposedly damaged alliances. In 
September 2007, Candidate Obama said:

       America's standing has suffered. Our diplomacy has been 
     compromised by a refusal to talk to people we don't like. Our 
     alliances have been compromised by bluster. Our credibility 
     has been compromised.

  So what has been the President's strategy for boosting America's 
standing? He has gone on an apology tour of sorts, a fundamental 
consequence of which, in the words of Charles Krauthammer, has been 
``to effectively undermine any claim America might have to world 
leadership.''
  The President has devoted much energy to improving relations with our 
adversaries. Not only have these efforts failed to yield positive 
results, but they have also led the administration to mistreat several 
key U.S. partners.
  The administration's approach to Iran has been regrettable, to say 
the least. President Obama came into office hoping to negotiate a 
``grand bargain'' over the Iranian nuclear program. He embraced a 
policy of engagement with the radical Iranian theocracy.

[[Page S20]]

  So far, this policy has done nothing to stop Iran from developing 
nuclear weapons and brutalizing its own people. But it did prevent the 
Obama administration from offering robust support to the pro-democracy 
demonstrators who flooded the streets last summer to protest a stolen 
election. Rather than embrace the protestors, who were standing up for 
liberty and human rights, President Obama initially said that he did 
not want ``to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections. Those 
protestors, by the way, are still out in the streets, waging a 
courageous struggle for democracy.
  Despite all these U.S. efforts to engage the Iranian government, the 
negotiations over Iran's nuclear program have gone nowhere, and the 
Iranian president recently declared that Iran ``will continue 
resisting'' international demands until the United States abolishes its 
own nuclear arsenal.
  We must remember that Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of 
terrorism, a government that murders peaceful student democracy 
activists. The events of the past year have shown that the Iranian 
regime is not a good-faith negotiator. Now is the time to maximize 
leverage over Iran through targeted sanctions. Meanwhile, we must not 
take any options off the table if we hope to prevent an Iranian nuclear 
weapon.
  The President's Iran strategy was based on the idea that U.S. 
engagement would produce real concessions. That did not work with 
Tehran, and it has not worked with Moscow either. Despite U.S. 
diplomatic efforts, the Russian government continues to withhold 
support for strong U.N. sanctions against Iran, it continues to bully 
its democratic neighbors, such as Georgia and Poland, and it continues 
to practice authoritarian domestic policies. America's allies in 
Eastern Europe and Near Asia are getting nervous. President Obama's 
cancellation of a planned missile-defense system in Poland and the 
Czech Republic, and the manner in which it was executed, gave the 
impression that the U.S. had caved to Russian pressure.
  There are few regions in the world as volatile as the Middle East. 
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has alienated our closest 
Middle Eastern ally, Israel, by stubbornly pushing it to adopt a 
comprehensive ``settlement freeze.''
  As Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national-security adviser, has 
written in National Review, the administration has managed to damage 
the U.S.-Israel alliance, weaken Palestinian Authority President 
Mahmoud Abbas, and produce ``a massive policy failure.'' We all want a 
just and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But 
demanding unilateral concessions from the Israeli government is no way 
to achieve it.

  As for Latin America, it was highly regrettable that the U.S. imposed 
sanctions on Honduras, since the removal of former Honduran president 
Manuel Zelaya was a constitutionally justified act of democracy. 
Despite initially siding with Zelaya, a close ally of Venezuelan leader 
Hugo Chavez, the Obama administration appears ready to recognize the 
validity of the recent Honduran elections. The administration should 
now lift suspension of aid, cease any further contact with Mr. Zelaya, 
and denounce his extra-constitutional behavior.
  With regard to Venezuela, the President's policy of engaging Hugo 
Chavez proved a failure. Writing in The Weekly Standard, Jaime 
Daremblum, Costa Rica's former ambassador to the United States, says, 
``If Obama believed his personal charm and assurances of goodwill would 
be sufficient to sway Chavez and the Castro brothers, he was 
mistaken.''
  Indeed, Chavez has responded to friendly U.S. overtures by continuing 
to suffocate Venezuelan democracy, continuing to cooperate with Iran 
and Russia, and continuing to harass neighboring democracies, such as 
Colombia, where Chavez has funded vicious narcoterrorists. In an 
editorial last spring, the Washington Post noted, ``This may be the 
first time the United States has watched the systematic destruction of 
a Latin American democracy in silence.''
  Meanwhile, pending free-trade agreements with U.S. allies in 
Colombia, Panama, and South Korea still have not been approved by this 
Congress. That represents yet another foreign-policy failure for this 
administration. I sincerely hope the President urges Democratic leaders 
to take action on these agreements sometime this year, preferably soon. 
Implementing these three trade deals would provide a boost to the U.S. 
economy and would also strengthen the U.S. position in two important 
regions.
  I also hope the President resists the temptation to support 
protectionist measures that will hurt our economy and damage our 
foreign relations. In his first year, the President signed a stimulus 
package containing a protectionist ``Buy American'' provision, agreed 
to discontinue a U.S.-Mexican trucking program, and imposed a tariff on 
Chinese tires. These policies were economically foolish, and they 
damaged America's credibility as a promoter of trade liberalization.
  Finally, a word about the administration's antiterror policies, and 
its decision to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. I am 
pleased that President Obama has maintained many of the policies that 
were formulated by President Bush, including the use of 
military commissions to try suspected terrorists. However, I am 
disappointed that the President has decided not to use a military 
commission to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 
attacks, and several of his co- conspirators.

  Giving these terrorists a civilian trial in New York City will pose 
significant national security risks; among other things, it will 
compromise U.S. intelligence-gathering methods. The administration has 
chosen to prosecute several other terrorists before a military 
commission. So why not Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Why should the highest-
ranking al-Qaida leader captured since 9/11 be given a civilian trial 
while other al-Qaida members are given military commission trials?
  The war against al-Qaida is just that, a war. It is not a law 
enforcement matter. By announcing that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other 
senior al-Qaida members will receive a civilian trial, the Obama 
administration has signaled that terrorists belong in the U.S. 
criminal-justice system. They do not. These men are enemy combatants 
waging war on the United States.
  The terrorists who are scheduled to receive civilian trials in New 
York City have been held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. When 
the President took office, he promised that Guantanamo would be closed 
within a year. It is now a year later, and Gitmo is still open, as it 
should be.
  There is a good reason that President Obama has not yet been able to 
fulfill his pledge: Closing Gitmo is a bad idea. The process of 
removing those detainees who are still being held at Gitmo will create 
a series of logistical problems and security threats.
  Last month, six Gitmo detainees were sent back to their home country 
of Yemen. Just a few days later, a Nigerian man with links to a Yemen-
based terrorist organization attempted to blow up Northwest Airlines 
flight 253. The flight 253 bombing attempt highlights the deadly threat 
posed by al-Qaida's Yemen affiliate, known as ``al- in the Arabian 
Peninsula.'' The administration has wisely halted the transfer of Gitmo 
detainees to Yemen. But it seems intent to try the flight 253 bomber as 
a criminal defendant, rather than an enemy combatant. That is deeply 
misguided, for the reasons I have just listed, as well as the 
unnecessary difficulties it raises for our intelligence gathering.
  The most important front in the war on terrorism remains the battle 
for Afghanistan. Several weeks ago, the President announced that he 
would be deploying an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to finish the 
mission. I strongly support that decision, yet I also worry that the 
President has set an artificial timeline for withdrawing American 
forces. The President declared that a withdrawal would begin no later 
than July of next year. I hope that he is willing to embrace a flexible 
timeline. Military decisions in Afghanistan should be determined by 
conditions on the ground, not by the political climate in Washington.
  The U.S. commitment to Afghanistan has been costly, and it will 
continue to be costly. That brings me to the connection between U.S. 
policies at home and U.S. strategy abroad. While domestic policy is not 
written to influence

[[Page S21]]

foreign policy, it affects what we can spend on defense and security.
  President Obama recently acknowledged the relationship between U.S. 
economic strength and U.S. global leadership, when he said, ``Our 
prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our 
military. It underwrites our diplomacy.''
  Well, that is absolutely true. Our leadership is contingent on our 
prosperity--and our ability to pay for a robust national defense.
  But massive amounts of new spending, new taxes, and European-style 
government programs will weaken the U.S. economy and make it more 
difficult for us to exercise global military leadership.
  Just look at what happened last year: While $1.2 trillion was pumped 
into the stimulus bill and the majority in this chamber passed a $2.5 
trillion government takeover of health care, the defense budget was 
practically frozen. Missile defense has been cut, and there's been a 
reduction in the number of interceptors in Alaska that protect us from 
a North Korean attack.
  So, there has to be balance in spending scarce resources.There is a 
tipping point at which excessive social spending chokes economic growth 
and weakens military power.
  European nations can get by with relatively low levels of defense 
spending and high social spending because, for decades, they have 
enjoyed the protection of America's security umbrella. As Mark Steyn 
writes in National Review ``Sweden can be Sweden because America is 
America.''
  But if we become more like Europe, if entitlement programs beginto 
swallow our budget whole, will we still be able to afford the burdens 
of global military leadership?
  I submit that military decline is not an option for the United 
States. As former Secretary of State Madeline Albright put it, we are 
``the indispensable nation.''
  That is what American exceptionalism means. It means that, because of 
our unique history, our unique power, and the unique appeal of our 
founding principles, America plays a special role in global affairs.
  I fear that many of the policies adopted over the past year will make 
it harder for America to continue playing this special role. I hope 
that during the year ahead, the administration will pursue a more 
sensible and responsible course.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct. We are in 
morning business.

                          ____________________