[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 35 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1418-S1419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND FREE-TRADE AGREEMENTS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, later today Senators will have an 
opportunity to take a position on government spending. At a time when 
Washington is borrowing about $4 billion a day, Democratic leaders want 
to cut about $4.5 billion in government spending for the rest of this 
fiscal year and call it a day. In other words, they want to take what 
amounts to a day-and-a-

[[Page S1419]]

half long holiday from their out-of-control spending and then return to 
the status quo for the rest of the year.
  Let me add that paying lipservice to the threat caused by the deficit 
is not a substitute for responsible leadership and that the job-
destroying tax hikes on small businesses and American families are not 
the answer to out-of-control Washington spending. At a time when 
increasing gas prices are already threatening our economic recovery, a 
minivan tax that some on the other side have proposed will not solve 
our Nation's fiscal crisis. But I will tell you what it will do. It 
will destroy jobs and impose a real burden on families every time they 
fill up at the pump--at a time when people are looking for relief 
instead.
  Democrats' steadfast refusal to cut another dime from the bloated 
Washington budget has left them no choice, it seems, but to propose 
raising taxes on American families and small businesses so they can 
continue spending at unsustainable levels. Republicans, on the other 
hand, have made a serious proposal to rein in wasteful spending. To me, 
at least, the choice before us is pretty clear.
  As we approach today's vote, it is worth noting that even if we were 
to pass the biggest spending cuts that have been proposed so far in 
this debate, it would not even put a dent in the fiscal problems we 
face as a result of the growth in entitlement spending. Think about it. 
Democrats have been waging war this week over a proposal to cut $4.7 
billion. Meanwhile, the amount of money we have promised to spend on 
programs such as Social Security and Medicare--money we do not have--is 
about $52 trillion.
  This week's debate is just a dress rehearsal for the big stuff, and 
so far Democrats are showing they are just not up to it. They either 
lack the stomach or the courage, and the President, as members of his 
own party point out, is nowhere to be found on this issue. I have 
talked about this leadership vacuum repeatedly this week on the 
entitlements and how their unchecked growth threatens to bury all of us 
in red ink before we know it. We can argue about whether to cut $5 
billion or $60 billion in day-to-day expenses all we want, but the fact 
is, even if we hit the bigger number, we are still staring at a 
catastrophe. And the President appears to be totally uninterested--
uninterested--in leading us to a bipartisan solution the way Ronald 
Reagan and Bill Clinton did the last time we faced a crisis of this 
magnitude.
  When it comes to another crisis, the jobs crisis, the President is 
not just failing to lead, he is flatout barring the door with a 
mountain of stifling new regulations and calculated inaction on 
outstanding free-trade agreements with Colombia and Panama.
  This morning, the U.S. Trade Representative is set to testify before 
the Finance Committee to voice the administration's support of a trade 
agreement with South Korea. While we support the administration's 
position on South Korea, the lack of leadership on these two other 
countries which signed free-trade agreements with us more than 3 years 
ago is completely disheartening. The reason for inaction is stunning. 
Union bosses do not want to see them passed. For some reason, they seem 
to think that expanding the market for U.S. goods into Colombia and 
Panama somehow hurts them, which is absurd, absolutely absurd. The 
administration has previously expressed tepid support for these deals, 
an acknowledgment that expanding markets for U.S. goods can only help 
U.S. workers and that the picture in Colombia is better than the labor 
bosses would have us believe, but they have failed to follow through.
  The irony of union opposition to these trade deals is that an 
expanded U.S. presence in Latin America can only help the workers there 
by exporting U.S. business standards and practices, and, of course, 
more exports for U.S. firms means more jobs for U.S. workers in the 
United States.
  In the last few weeks, company after company has come before Congress 
to testify how important accessing Latin American markets is for their 
future and to create jobs right in America. According to the chamber of 
commerce, failing to pass these trade agreements, along with the trade 
agreement with South Korea, could cost us 380,000 U.S. jobs.
  While we dither on these agreements, Colombia has moved on. Having 
been stiff-armed by the United States, it is finding other trade 
partners. Naturally, Colombia has turned to other countries and, worse, 
still is warming relations with Hugo Chavez in neighboring Venezuela. 
Last week, Colombia President Juan Manuel Santos was quoted referring 
to Chavez as his ``new best friend''--a man who just last year accused 
Santos of plotting to assassinate him.
  At a time when nearly 14 million Americans are looking for work, the 
President should be listening to those of us who come to him with ways 
to create jobs. And this is one of them. The administration has no 
excuse for failing to act on these trade agreements. It is in the 
interest of our country to approve them. It would create jobs at home 
at a time when we desperately need them. I am confident Congress could 
pass these on a bipartisan basis today.
  I urge the administration to act today, and not just on South Korea 
but on Colombia and Panama. I, for one, am prepared to do everything in 
my power to pass these agreements, all of them together, this year.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________