[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 64 (Wednesday, May 11, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2853-S2855]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        RAISING THE DEBT CEILING

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, since I first came to the Congress back 
in 1997 as a freshman Member of the House of Representatives, I have 
been talking about spending and debt and deficits, and that was a key, 
central element of my campaign for my first election to the House of 
Representatives way back in the day. Of course, at that time the 
numbers were a lot less daunting than they are today.
  If we just look at even where we were 15 years ago in relative terms, 
the point at which we find ourselves today is almost overwhelming. The 
debt now is over $14 trillion. We are being asked to raise the debt 
ceiling even further. I would argue we can no longer afford to put 
these hard decisions off because these are serious times and these call 
for serious solutions and serious leadership. I hope we are up to that 
task.
  For a long time we thought debts and spending and deficits and all 
those sorts of things could be acceptable up to a certain level, and I 
suppose to some degree that is true. Historically, if we look at our 
country in terms of revenue and spending, over time we have 
consistently had a certain amount of debt that we carried. But I think 
by any stretch, any American, any economist, anybody who watches this 
closely has to recognize the situation in which we find ourselves today 
is unprecedented in American history and cries out for action--
immediate action and bold action.
  This is something I would argue my constituents are very concerned 
about--I think all Americans are very concerned about--because, again, 
if we look at it in relative terms, where we are today--$14 trillion in 
accumulated debt--and we go back in the annals of history and look at 
from the formation of this country back in the late 1700s until 1849, 
our Federal Government spent--if you can imagine this--only about $1 
billion over that 60-year time period.
  Today, we will borrow $4 billion. Between today at 9:50 a.m. and this 
time tomorrow at 9:50 a.m., our Federal Government will borrow $4 
billion, which, to put that into perspective, suggests we will borrow, 
in the next 24 hours, more than four times what we spent in our first 
60 years as a nation.
  Now, in fact, in 1835, under President Andrew Jackson, the government 
debt--for the only time in our Nation's history--was completely paid 
off. Since that time, our debts have been large and small, with large 
runups in the debt during times of war, while the debt largely declined 
during times of peace. Never, though, did our debt top even 50 percent 
of our entire economy, of our GDP, until the Great Depression.
  At the end of World War II, debt topped 120 percent of GDP. But in 
the postwar period, debt steadily declined as a percentage of our 
economy, attributable to a couple factors: One was strong economic 
growth, and the second was a government that managed to keep spending 
relatively low.
  When we look at the post-World War II time period, and we get into 
the 1960s and we reach the end of the 1960s, in that time period to 
2008--from 1969 to 2008--on average government spending consumed about 
20.6 percent of our entire economy while taxes during that time period 
on average were about 18 percent of our economy. That, in balance, led 
to a sizable but a manageable national debt. Debt held by the public 
just before this President took office was $6.3 trillion.
  Now, to put it into perspective, during the previous 40 years the 
budget was balanced on five occasions. So if we look back, in the last 
40 years of our Nation's history there were five occasions on which we 
were able to balance the budget. In each of these years--and those were 
1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001--spending was below the historical 
average.
  In 1969 spending was just 19.4 percent of our GDP. In 1998 it was 
19.1 percent of our GDP. In 1999 it was 8.5 percent of GDP. In 2000 and 
2001 it was only 18.2 percent of our GDP. So when we look at the years 
when our budget was balanced, spending averaged just under 18.7 percent 
of GDP. So what are we set to spend this year? Madam President, 24.3 
percent of our GDP--an astonishing 30 percent more than we have spent 
historically when our budget was balanced. Our debt held by the public 
at the end of this year will be nearly double what it was when this 
President took office.
  So how did we get to such a high level of spending? Well, to be fair, 
I think we would have to say some of this is attributable to the 
economic downturn. Obviously, tax receipts, revenues, are down as a 
consequence of the economy being in a recession. We also have the 
ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been expensive 
and, obviously, have required a large commitment of resources in order 
to conduct the operations that are necessary for success there. But I 
would also argue that a substantial chunk is due to the spending spree 
that Congress has been on since 2008.

  Between 2008 and 2010 spending on nondefense discretionary programs 
went up more than 20 percent even though inflation over that same time 
period was around 2 percent. When we add in what eventually the 
bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are going to cost, which will be 
hundreds of billions of dollars, that adds significantly to the debt. 
Of course, the stimulus boondoggle cost us over $800 billion in the 
short term. When we add in the interest costs that are associated with 
that, it will be over $1 trillion--which was all borrowed, borrowed 
money, borrowed from our children and grandchildren.
  When we look at the percentage, as I said before, of spending $1 
trillion, literally, on that one program, that one policy, the stimulus 
program that went into effect a couple years ago, that is literally a 
thousand times more than what we spent as a nation in our first 60 
years of its existence.
  If we look at the projections included in the President's budget, it 
is revealing that it never balances, and that is due entirely to 
spending. Spending under the President's budget never falls below 23 
percent of our entire economy, of our GDP. After 2015 it grows, and 
there is not a single year when the spending does not grow as a share 
of our economy. So we have this constant growth in overall spending as 
a percentage of our GDP that is way beyond the norm if we look at any 
sort of historical average.
  So when the President submitted his initial budget to the Congress, I 
think we were all hopeful it would demonstrate an acknowledgement that 
he gets it; that he understands the dimensions of this problem and how 
serious our fiscal and financial straits are. But the budget he 
submitted to Congress a few months ago actually increased spending over 
the 10-year time period, massively increased the debt, and raised taxes 
on our small businesses at a time when, as I said earlier, we are 
hoping to get the economy growing and expanding again, which helps 
address many of the problems I just mentioned. We cannot have economic 
growth when we are raising taxes on the job creators in our economy, 
which is our small businesses.
  I would argue the two things that are going to be necessary for us to 
get our economy back on track and to address this issue of spending and 
this out-of-control debt are to get spending under control, to make the 
hard decisions that have been put off for far too long; and, secondly, 
to put policies in place that will enable and create the conditions for 
economic growth and job creation.
  Well, if we look at what the current administration is doing in terms 
of policies, what I hear as I travel in my State of South Dakota from 
small businesses--I hear it from agricultural producers--is that at 
almost every turn they are facing new regulations, new policies coming 
out of Washington that do not reduce the cost of doing business but 
actually increase the cost of doing business and drive down their 
margins, make it more difficult for them to invest capital, to hire new 
people, and to get this economy going and expanding again.
  There are numerous examples of that. We have a number of agencies 
that are just issuing, promulgating regulations, pursuing an aggressive 
agenda, much of which cannot be accomplished in Congress because there 
are not the votes in the Congress to accomplish much of that agenda. So 
the administration has decided, by just sort of an executive power 
grab, to try to accomplish much of that agenda.
  Well, as I said before, most of those policies are things that make 
it more

[[Page S2854]]

expensive to do business in this country and are going to make it more 
difficult for our small businesses to get back on track. I mentioned 
the tax increases the President has proposed, consistently proposed, 
not only in the budget he released to Congress several months ago but 
more recently, a couple weeks back, when he came out with his sort of 
new improved budget still loaded up with tax increases on small 
businesses--the very opposite of what we would want to do if we want to 
encourage small businesses to invest and create jobs.
  The economic uncertainty that is created by tax policies which are 
not permanent, expire in a couple years, the economic uncertainty 
created by not knowing what the next regulation coming out of 
Washington, DC, is going to do to their bottom line is creating an 
anxiety out there among investors and keeping on the sidelines a lot of 
the capital that otherwise would be put to work and deployed in 
creating jobs.
  So if we look at just a few examples--the EPA is probably the most 
notable one; that is the one I hear the most about--it does not matter 
whether I am talking to a small business group or whether I am talking, 
again, to farmers and ranchers, consistently, they say: These 
regulations coming out of Washington, DC--and specifically in this 
case, most of them are referring to policies that are coming out of the 
EPA--are making it very difficult for us to create jobs, to put people 
back to work, and to invest, reinvest in our businesses.
  So we have these types of regulations that are coming out of these 
agencies. We also have, as I said, a runup in costs associated with 
many of the policies the Congress has enacted, the spending and debt 
issues that have been created by the stimulus bill, the new health care 
bill, which when it is fully implemented will cost $2.5 trillion or 
thereabouts, but it is going to pass on lots of new costs to businesses 
across this country not only in the form of tax increases but also in 
the form of higher insurance rates which they are going to be looking 
at.
  I think you are going to see a continued period where businesses in 
this country--small businesses--because of this economic uncertainty, 
will continue to sit it out and don't do the things that are necessary 
to get people back to work and to deal with high unemployment. There is 
also the issue of a depressed economic downturn that will make it more 
difficult for us to expand the economy and address this issue of 
increasing revenues at the Federal level, which will help solve the 
problem we have with the deficit and debt.
  Another issue that I think is significant now, but it is always an 
issue for the people I represent in South Dakota, is high energy costs. 
The Democratic prescription--the most recent one--is to tax energy 
companies. If you want to get lower cost energy, one of the things you 
would not do is raise taxes and make it more costly and expensive for 
people to do business. If you look at, again, EPA and their attempt to 
regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, which they 
don't have the authority to do but want to do anyway, has made it more 
difficult for energy companies to get permits, and a number of projects 
have been scratched across this country. I can think of a couple in 
South Dakota.
  If you look at the fact that if we continue to get 60 percent of our 
fuel from outside the United States--we are literally sending $1 
billion a day to foreign countries because of our addiction to foreign 
energy--and if you look at the policies here that we should be 
implementing if we are interested in getting to be energy independent 
and produce more American energy, you find a complete contradiction 
with what the President and his allies in Congress say. They all talk 
about energy independence, getting away from spending $1 billion a day 
on foreign oil. Yet, their policies tell another story, because we are 
limiting even more the amount of area in this country that would be 
open to energy exploration and production. We have enormous resources 
in the United States--oil and gas, clean coal, biofuels, and others 
that we can gain access to.
  Right now, we have energy policies that seem more intent on and 
concerned with some other agenda rather than energy independence. If 
you are interested in energy independence, I would think you would put 
policies into place that encourage the production of more American 
energy. Exactly the opposite is occurring. We have more and more areas 
that have been taken off limits--public lands. We cannot get to the 
Outer Continental Shelf. A permatorium is in existence in the South. 
The North Slope of Alaska has tremendous energy resources. Much of this 
is off limits, and that will continue to drive us into the arms of 
foreign countries--many that don't have the best interests of this 
country in mind and, perhaps even worse, fund organizations that plan 
attacks against the United States and our allies.
  It strikes me at least that if you are serious about getting deficits 
and debt under control, the one thing you would do is put policies into 
place that enable small businesses to do what they do best, and that is 
grow and create jobs. Secondly, you would put constraints on Federal 
spending in Washington, DC--this issue I mentioned earlier--so that the 
consistent runup in the amount we spend on our Federal Government as a 
percentage of GDP will start to not only taper off but come down.
  There are a number of suggestions that have been made out there--
certainly, perhaps, no perfect one. At least people are taking a 
legitimate shot at trying to address this issue. There has been a lot 
of discussion about the Ryan budget that was passed by the House of 
Representatives. That is already being immediately attacked. Perhaps it 
is not perfect, but it is a serious effort to control spending.
  The only other suggestions we have seen, as I mentioned, are some 
statements made by the President about his proposals, again, all of 
which increase taxes, increase spending, and add massively to the 
Federal debt. It seems to me that we are not having a serious 
discussion about balancing our budget and paying off our debt, 
particularly, again, when you put into perspective where we are. 
Between now and 10 a.m. tomorrow, we will borrow another $4 billion, 
which, as I said before--I think it bears repeating--is literally four 
times the amount our entire country spent in the first 60 years of its 
existence. Again, that is $4 billion between now and this time 
tomorrow.
  We are being requested to raise the debt limit, the amount we can 
borrow, raise the limits on our credit card in the next few weeks 
because we are up against that ceiling. We have hit the maximum. We 
have capped out our ability to borrow money. We are going to be asked 
to make a vote to increase that borrowing ceiling. I don't think that 
can occur honestly until such time as we are willing to put into place 
and take the necessary steps to get this issue of spending under 
control.
  This is, by definition, a spending issue. Some people argue that we 
need tax increases and additional revenue. The observation I made about 
balancing the budget was that at the times we did that over the last 40 
years--on those five occasions, in every case, we spent less than the 
average--in some cases significantly less--as a percentage of our GDP.
  Clearly, the way to attack this issue is to get spending under 
control. That will require hard decisions, many of which have been 
postponed. We have been kicking the can down the road for a long time. 
We are out of road now. We have come up to the cliff. We cannot kick 
the can any further. The road is at an end. We are up against some very 
serious impediments if we don't take the necessary steps to fix the 
problem.
  Again, when I talk about the seriousness of it, over the last few 
years we have paid lipservice to the issue of spending and debt. I 
maintain that you have to judge people by what they do and how they 
vote, not by what they say. We need to debate this issue. As we get 
into the discussion over raising the debt limit, it creates an 
opportunity for both sides--Republicans and Democrats--to come together 
behind a plan that will meaningfully reduce spending in this country, 
which will deal with entitlement reform, which is needed. We cannot 
solve this problem in the long term unless we address the issue of 
entitlement reform and get some limits on spending that will be 
binding, that we cannot get around.
  It is too easy too waive things here and declare an emergency and 
continue to spend as if there is no tomorrow.

[[Page S2855]]

These are serious times. They require serious leadership and serious 
solutions. That point is no better made than by some of our leaders in 
this country. As we all know, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, has said in testimony before Congress that the 
greatest threat to America's national security is our national debt. I 
think that is a stunning and powerful statement about where we are and 
the importance of acting now. We had the former Federal Reserve 
Chairman, Alan Greenspan, say not too long ago that there is a 50-
percent probability that we will face a debt crisis in the next 2 to 3 
years. And then, of course, we had Standard & Poors provide a negative 
assessment to our credit rating in this country. That, too, is 
something we have not seen before. I hope we are willing to take the 
necessary steps to avoid our credit rating being downgraded. When you 
get an assessment such as that, it is not too long that a downgrade in 
your credit rating follows.

  Those are not just anecdotal things, those are fact-based assessments 
and analysis of where we are. These are people who know the importance 
of dealing with these issues. If we continue to borrow more money from 
other places and don't take the necessary steps to fix this, we will 
continue to put our future of our children and grandchildren at greater 
risk and in greater jeopardy.
  This will not be easy. Obviously, there will be political 
consequences to any decisions we make. But these decisions are more 
difficult because we have put them off for so long. The easy decisions, 
the low-hanging fruit is no longer out there. We have to decide now, 
are we going to continue to spend and spend and borrow and borrow, to 
the point where we head over the cliff because we ran out of road, or 
will we make these decisions now and get serious about providing a 
stronger and better and more prosperous future for our children and 
grandchildren?
  We cannot act as though the Federal Government doesn't have a 
spending problem. Those days are gone. We no longer have that luxury; 
the numbers bear that out. So we need to look at the debt limit and the 
upcoming vote as an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to come 
together behind a plan that will meaningfully address our spending 
problem.
  The status quo is not acceptable. It is going to require leadership 
from the President, which has been nonexistent so far. I hope he will 
step forward. It will require leadership from Democrats in the Senate. 
They control the agenda here and they have the majority. I hope we do a 
budget this year. We didn't do one last year in the Senate. I think it 
is important to have that debate, so that the American people see us 
debating how we are going to spend their tax dollars. That is something 
every American should expect and deserves from their elected leaders.
  I hope we will have a budget markup where we can get these issues out 
in front not only for us to discuss but also in front of the American 
people. This is their future we are talking about. If we don't act, we 
are putting in great peril and jeopardy the future for our children and 
grandchildren.
  I wanted to point out where we have come from and where, in my view, 
we need to go if we are going to solve this problem. I hope my 
colleagues will join in that discussion, not only rhetorically but that 
their actions will follow. We cannot just talk about this; it is time 
for us to quit talking and start acting.
  I yield the floor and 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. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________