[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 25, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S72-S73]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, every grade school student knows that 
all three branches of the Federal Government in Washington are equal, 
but as every Member of Congress quickly learns, the President sets the 
agenda. Never is that more apparent than on the day of the State of the 
Union Address. This year the President will be speaking to a Congress 
that looks very different from the one he spoke to last year. The 
voters sent a clear message in November that when it comes to jobs and 
the economy, the administration's policies have done far more damage 
than good.
  One very positive thing that the President could do tonight is to 
acknowledge they have a point. He has tried to do so indirectly in 
recent weeks by hiring new staff and by speaking in tones of 
moderation, but it takes more than a change in tone to improve the 
economy. It takes more than a change in tone to reduce the debt. It 
takes more than a change in tone to help create the right conditions 
for private-sector job growth. It takes a change in policy, and the 
early signals suggest the President isn't quite there yet.
  The President has talked recently about working together to improve a 
regulatory climate that stifles business innovation and job growth. Yet 
he has not acknowledged the extent to which his own policies have 
stifled growth. Over the past 2 years, his administration has issued 
more than 130 economically significant new rules or 40 percent more 
than the annual rate under the last two Presidents. What is worse,

[[Page S73]]

the new health care bill will alone create 159 new bureaucratic 
entities and it is exempt from the President's proposed regulatory 
reforms. The health care bill, which will create 159 new bureaucratic 
entities, is exempt from the President's proposed regulatory reforms. 
This is bad news for small business that was already struggling to get 
by in a down economy and which is now grappling with how to afford all 
the new mandates in the new health care bill.
  The President has talked about streamlining and reducing the burden 
of government. Yet the health care bill he has signed is already 
increasing the cost of care and forcing people out of their existing 
coverage. The debate over this bill continues and the President and 
Democrats in Congress continue to defend it. But when nearly two-thirds 
of doctors surveyed predicted it will make health care in America 
worse, Americans are right to be concerned. It should tell us something 
that of the 19 doctors currently in Congress, 18 of them support repeal 
of the health care bill.
  The President has talked about the need to cut spending and reduce 
the debt. Yet over the last 2 years his policies have added more than 
$3 trillion to the national debt, much of it through a stimulus that 
promised to keep unemployment--now hovering just below double digits--
from rising above 8 percent. And now we hear that he plans to stick 
with the same failed approach of economic growth through even more 
government spending with a call for ``investments'' in education, 
infrastructure, research, and renewable energy.
  We have seen before what Democrats in Washington mean by investments. 
In promoting the failed stimulus, the President referred to that too as 
an investment in our Nation's future. Fourteen times alone during his 
signing statement he referred to the stimulus bill's investments. We 
all know how that turned out.
  The first stimulus, we were told, would include critical so-called 
investments in education, infrastructure, scientific research, and 
renewable energy--the same areas we are told he will focus on tonight. 
Only later did we learn that some of these critical investments 
included things such as repairs on tennis courts, a study on the mating 
decisions of cactus bugs, hundreds of thousands of dollars for a plant 
database, and a $535 million loan to a California solar panel maker 
which, instead of hiring 1,000 new workers as planned, just laid off 
175 instead.
  This is what happens when the government decides to pick winners and 
losers without considering what the marketplace wants. Competitors are 
left out in the cold, employees get a false sense of security, and 
taxpayers are left holding the bag. Unfortunately, the President does 
not seem to have learned this lesson quite yet. But taxpayers now know 
that when Democrats talk about investments they should grab their 
wallets.
  So I am all for the President changing his tune, but unless he has a 
time machine, he cannot change his record. If we are going to make any 
real progress in the areas of spending, debt, and reining in 
government, the President will have to acknowledge that the policies of 
the past 2 years are not only largely to blame for the situation we 
find ourselves in, but that unless we do something to reverse their ill 
effects, the road to recovery and prosperity will be a bumpy one.
  The President has spoken in the tones of a moderate many times. He 
did so in his campaign. He has done so in countless speeches. He has a 
knack for it. I have no doubt he will do so again tonight. But speeches 
only last for as long as they are delivered. Americans are more 
interested in what follows the speech and, in the case of this 
administration, Americans have good reason to be skeptical. Time and 
time again the President has spoken in a way that appeals to many, then 
governed in a way that does not. My hope is he will leave that method 
aside. A better path, in my view, is the one Republicans have been 
proposing for 2 years, one that respects both the wishes of the public 
and the two-party system.

  Last year, prior to the President's State of the Union, I proposed a 
number of areas where I thought the two parties could find common 
ground and work together to help the economy. The President ignored 
just about everything I proposed. So when the pundits ask whether there 
are areas where the two parties could come together, I would say yes, I 
have proposed several of them, but the Democrats don't seem to be 
interested. Some have suggested that in this new post-election 
environment I might find a more receptive audience. So in the spirit of 
bipartisanship, I wish to propose once again a few areas where I 
believe the two parties can work together in the weeks and months 
ahead.
  I believe the parties can and should work together on energy 
initiatives that expand America's domestic energy supply and make us 
less reliant on foreign sources; on expanding exports and creating jobs 
through free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea; 
and on reforming corporate taxes so American businesses are more 
competitive in an increasingly global marketplace. These are just a few 
of the things we can do beyond the symbolic gestures and the posturing 
to help the economy.
  Beyond that, we must work to cut spending and to rein in the size and 
scope and cost of government. The voters have been crystal clear on 
this point. By proposing more government spending tonight, the 
President is not only defying their will, he is refusing to learn the 
clear lesson of the failed stimulus--government may create debt but it 
doesn't create jobs.
  I think we have a lot of work to do in bringing the two parties 
together in a program that will actually address the problems we face. 
But there are reasons for optimism. The President's change in tone is 
an acknowledgement at least that something has to change, as was his 
willingness to work with Republicans last month to keep taxes from 
going up on anyone. In the coming weeks and months Americans will be 
looking to him to come around on spending and debt as well, and 
Republicans will be working hard to persuade him to do so.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________