Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 116 (Friday, July 29, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 116 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5036-S5044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE DEBT CEILING

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now reaching a critical hour in the
Congress of the United States on the question of extending the debt
limit of the Nation and of fundamentally dealing with the debt of the
Nation. I don't think there is any serious person in either body who
does not understand that we must deal with the debt itself as we extend
the debt limit. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. The
gross debt of the United States will reach 100 percent of our GDP by
the end of this year. The best economists in the country, of whatever
philosophical stripe, are telling us we are on an unsustainable course
that must be changed.
Mr. President, in the midst of this, we have had the House so far
unable to send us a package. Now, we are told they do have the votes
because they have added a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution
as part of their package. The balanced budget amendment they previously
proposed in the House of Representatives can never pass the Senate--at
least as this body is currently constituted--and it should not pass
this body. It is deeply flawed. To attach that to a measure that has to
pass both Houses before Tuesday of next week, frankly, is an indication
of a lack of seriousness on the part of our colleagues in the House of
Representatives.
Ultimately, there has to be a bipartisan agreement. Our friends in
the other party control the House of Representatives, the Senate is
controlled by my party, the Democratic Party, and we have a Democrat in
the White House. No serious person can fail to understand that putting
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that is deeply
flawed into that package absolutely guarantees it cannot pass in this
Chamber. That would take a two-thirds vote. I don't believe it would
even command a simple majority here, much less a two-thirds vote.
So here we are at the eleventh hour, and people in the other body
seemingly are still not serious about coping with the challenge of both
extending the debt limit to avoid a default, which would be
catastrophic, and dealing with the debt itself. I understand
ideological rigidity. The time for that is past. The time now is to
work together in some reasonable way so we advance legislation that
both extends the debt limit to avoid the catastrophic consequences of a
default and deals with the debt threat itself.
The New York Times on Wednesday had this story: ``On All Levels of
the Economy, Concern About the Impasse.'' What they were talking about
is the rating agencies saying that if we don't do both, if we don't
extend the debt limit and deal effectively with the debt itself, they
are going to downgrade the rating of our credit as a country. The story
goes on to say:

Economists and analysts are trying to gauge the costs to
the economy and consumers if the United States loses its
solid-gold credit rating--a move that appears more likely now
that the stand-off in Washington over government spending has
calcified. Some economists say the effects of lowering the
Federal Government's credit rating

[[Page S5037]]

to AA from AAA can be measured in the billions of dollars in
increased borrowing costs for the government and in the
billions more that consumers, corporations, states, and
municipalities will have to pay for their credit. It also
could erode consumer and business confidence, slowing even
further the economy and job creation.

It has started already. We have just learned the latest numbers on
economic growth. They were a tepid 1.3 percent. This uncertainty being
created by a failure to deal with our debt and with an extension of the
debt limit is creating a headwind for our economy, reducing economic
growth, slowing job creation, and costing us a stronger recovery.
I want to remind colleagues that every 1 percentage point increase in
interest rates adds $1.3 trillion to the deficits. So kicking this can
down the road and not facing up to it has enormous consequences: $1.3
trillion added debt for every 1 percent increase in interest rates.
This is just the effect on the Federal Government. Trillions more would
be the effect on consumers, on companies, and on other levels of
government with an increase in interest rates.
The proposal by the Speaker that apparently the House is now prepared
to send us has fatal flaws, and here they are:
First of all, it would repeat the default crisis in just 6 months.
That would continue the uncertainty and put the economy at further
risk. Our friends on the other side have repeatedly said how
uncertainty is hurting this economy, and now they themselves want to
create more uncertainty. It makes no sense.
The Boehner plan includes significantly less deficit reduction than
does the Reid plan. The Boehner plan, as I understand it--we have not
been able to calculate his newest version fully--was in the range of $1
trillion of savings. Majority Leader Reid's plan is well over $2
trillion of savings.
Third, the Boehner plan provides no firewall between security and
nonsecurity spending. That means even deeper cuts on the domestic side
of the ledger because we all know what happens if you don't have a
firewall.
Finally, it requires an irresponsible balanced budget amendment
approach that has been clearly rejected here and will be rejected
again. That is certain.
Standard & Poor's has warned against repeated debt ceiling debates.
Here is what they said on July 26:

We would be concerned if we thought that the debt ceiling
debate would come back and be open and we'd have to go
through all this again and again and again. That would be a
negative, in our view.

This is the rating agency that determines what the interest rates
will be on the debt of our country--not directly but indirectly because
if they rate down our creditworthiness, that will increase interest
rates. So they are sending a very clear signal: Don't do the Speaker
Boehner plan that has only a 6-month extension and repeat this whole
process and create more uncertainty and put the economy further at
risk. To avoid a U.S. credit rating downgrade, S&P wants to see a
bipartisan debt-reduction effort, not the totally partisan approach
Speaker Boehner has for the moment chosen to pursue. I don't know what
could be more clear.
The other body is in control of our friends in the other party; this
body is in control of the Democrats. At the end of the day, we have to
come together. We have to work together.
Now, I have been part of two efforts to work together.
Last year, the fiscal commission--18 of us were given the
responsibility to come up with a plan to get our debt under control. At
the end of the day, 11 of the 18 agreed on a plan--5 Democrats, 5
Republicans, and 1 Independent--fully bipartisan. I was proud to be
part of the 11 who agreed to that plan.
This year, I have been part of the Group of 6--3 Democrats, 3
Republicans--who were asked by about 30 of our colleagues to see if we
could find a way to implement the findings of the commission because
for the commission's findings to be implemented, they had to have a
super-supermajority. They had to have 14 of the 18 agree, and even
though we had 11 of 18, it wasn't enough. So about 30 Senators met at
the beginning of this year, the end of last, and asked a group of us--
6, 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans--to see if we could come up with a
bipartisan plan. We worked all year, hundreds of hours, and we have
agreed. We have laid out a plan for our colleagues. It is the only
bipartisan plan before either Chamber.
Speaker Boehner at this late hour is still pursuing a plan only on
the Republican side of the aisle and only in one Chamber. That can't
possibly be a recipe for success.
David Beers, Standard & Poor's global head of sovereign ratings, said
this on July 26:

We will measure the deal on a number of parameters. One is,
is it credible? And credibility, among other things, means to
us that there has to be some buy-in across the political
divide, across both parties, because politics can and will
change going forward. And if there's ownership by both sides
of the program, then that would give us more confidence. It's
not just about the number. It's about the all-in intent.

Mr. President, are our colleagues listening? The solution cannot be
found on just one side of the aisle in one Chamber. This is going to
require bipartisan, bicameral cooperation. We are going to have to act
like adults, not like kids in a schoolyard pointing fingers, spreading
rumors, spreading blame. That will not lead to success.
Here is the circumstance we face. The red line is the spending line
of the United States going back 60 years, and the green line is the
revenue line of the United States going back 60 years. What you can see
is that the revenue of the United States as a share of our national
income is the lowest it has been in 60 years. Spending as a share of
our national income is the highest it has been in 60 years. Revenue is
the lowest, spending is the highest--that is why we have record
deficits. Clearly, you have to work both sides of the equation to get a
solution.
Some of our friends on the other side are saying: Don't touch
revenue. Some of our friends on both sides are saying: Ah, and don't
touch entitlements. Don't touch Medicare, don't touch Social Security,
don't touch Medicaid.
If you can't touch revenue and you can't touch the entitlements, you
can't solve the problem by definition. When you are borrowing 40 cents
of every dollar and you exclude all revenue--that is half the
equation--and you exclude 60 percent of Federal spending--if you
eliminated all the rest of Federal spending, every dime for defense,
for nondefense discretionary, if you eliminated every dime, it wouldn't
solve the problem. At some point we have to get serious and real with
the American people. The balanced budget amendment our colleagues in
the House sent us previously, that has already been rejected here once.
Now they are putting it in the package to send to us again at the
eleventh hour--it is a balanced budget amendment that is as deeply
flawed as any amendment I have seen in 25 years in this Chamber.

Let me review what our friends on the other side sent us in a
balanced budget amendment that was rejected here just in the last few
weeks:
No. 1, it would restrict the ability to respond to economic
downturns--meaning we would compound the decline. That is bad
economics, and it is not going to pass.
No. 2, it uses Social Security funds to calculate balance and
subjects that program to the same cuts as other Federal spending even
though Social Security has its own trust fund and is separately funded.
No. 3, it shifts the ultimate decisions on budgeting to unelected and
unaccountable judges.
No. 4, it requires a State ratification process that could take years
to complete. We don't have years to wait for a State ratification
process for a constitutional amendment. We need to make these spending
and revenue decisions ourselves, and do it now. It is our
responsibility. Let's not wait for the States to ratify a
constitutional amendment before we take the action that is necessary.
The balanced budget amendment the House previously sent us has the
risk of turning a recession into a depression. Why do I say that? There
is no provision in the amendment they sent us for an economic downturn
as being an exemption from the balanced budget requirement. That is
Hoover economics all over again. How many times do we have to learn the
harsh lesson that when we are in an economic freefall, the only entity
big enough to pull us out is the collective organization of

[[Page S5038]]

our government? That is the only place that has the muscle to prevent a
recession from turning into a depression. The balanced budget amendment
our colleagues sent us before would absolutely lock down the Federal
Government's ability to respond. That would be a profound mistake and
contradict all we have learned in economics since the Great Depression.
This is what Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute, said about this constitutional amendment. He called it a
``really dumb idea.''
This is what he said:

Few ideas are more seductive on the surface and more
destructive in reality than a balanced budget amendment.
Here is why: Nearly all our States have balanced budget
requirements. That means when the economy slows, States are
forced to raise taxes or slash spending at just the wrong
time, providing a fiscal drag when what is needed is
countercyclical policy to stimulate the economy. In fact, the
fiscal drag from the states in 2009-2010, was barely
countered by the Federal stimulus plan. That meant the
Federal stimulus provided was nowhere near what was needed
but far better than doing nothing. Now imagine that scenario
with a federal drag instead.

The Washington Post ran an editorial about the House balanced budget
amendment headlined, ``A Bad Idea Returns.''

Rewriting the Constitution is the wrong way to deal with
the debt.

Here is what they said in their editorial:

Worse yet, the latest version would impose an absolute cap
on spending as a share of the economy.
It would prevent Federal expenditures from exceeding 18
percent of the Gross Domestic Product in any year. Most
unfortunately, the amendment lacks a clause letting the
government exceed that limit to strengthen a struggling
economy. No matter how shaky the State of the Union,
policymakers would be prevented from adopting emergency
spending such as, the extension of unemployment insurance and
other countercyclical expenses that have helped cushion the
blow of the current economic downturn.

It doesn't stop there. This is what Senator McCain said on the
Republican balanced budget amendment proposal on July 27:

What is amazing about this, some members are believing we
can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in
this body with its present representation, and that is
foolish. That is worse than foolish. That is deceiving many
of our constituents. . . . That is not fair to the American
people to hold out and say we will not agree to raising the
debt limit until we pass a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution. It is unfair. It is bizarro. Maybe some people
who have only been in this body for 6 or 7 months or so
believe that. Others know better. . . . It is time we
listened to the markets. It is time we listened to our
constituents. Most of all, it is time we listened to the
American people and sit down and seriously negotiate
something. . . .

Senator McCain had it exactly right. Sending us a deeply flawed
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States at
the eleventh hour is not designed to achieve a result. It is designed
to achieve a headline, a bumper sticker slogan that will not help us
solve the problem.
Here is what a top economic adviser to former President Reagan said
about the House balanced budget amendment. This is Bruce Bartlett, a
former Reagan administration top economic adviser. He said:

I have previously explained the idiocy of right wing
advocates . . . of a balanced budget amendment. However, the
new Republican balanced budget proposal is especially
dimwitted. . . . In short this is quite possibly the
stupidest constitutional amendment I think I have ever seen.
It looks like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the
back of a napkin. Every Senator cosponsoring this balanced
budget amendment should be ashamed of themselves.

That is from a former top economic adviser to Ronald Reagan. Is
anybody listening? Is anybody paying attention to how far off base
things have slipped in the other body to send us at this moment, at
this critical juncture, a plan that has absolutely no chance of passing
in this body, and should not?
What is so deeply flawed is--in addition to the other points I have
made--the balanced budget amendment the House Republicans sent us
earlier set a spending cap of 18 percent of GDP. Well, let's add up
what that would mean.
We can see Social Security is the red band. That is about 5 percent
of GDP. If we add defense and all other nonhealth care spending, that
takes us up to about 16.5 percent of GDP. Interest on the debt takes us
to over 18 percent of GDP.
Do you notice what is missing? Medicare. In the Republican plan they
sent to us with a spending cap of 18 percent of GDP, if we fund Social
Security, if we fund defense and other nonhealth spending, and we fund
interest on the debt, there is no money left. There is no money for
Medicare. There is no money for Medicaid. There is no money for any
health care spending. That is what the House of Representatives sent us
in the last several weeks as a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
When some on our side called it cut, cap, and kill Medicare, they
were not kidding. If we add it up, it does not add up. Not only that,
the balanced budget amendment our colleagues in the House sent us in
the last few weeks also said it would take a two-thirds vote to get any
additional revenue even though revenue is the lowest it has been in 60
years. They would apply a two-thirds requirement to get more revenue.
Really? So they would protect with a two-thirds vote requirement every
tax scam, every offshore tax haven, every abusive tax shelter that is
currently being used by some to avoid and evade the taxes they owe our
country.
I have shown this picture on the floor of the Senate many times. This
is a little building in the Cayman Islands. It is a little five-story
building that claims to be home to 18,857 companies. They all say this
is their business headquarters. I have said that is the most efficient
building in the world. A little five-story building down there, and it
is the headquarters of 18,000 companies. Anybody believe that? Anybody
believe that 18,000 companies are operating out of that little building
down in the Cayman Islands? They are not operating their businesses out
of there. They are engaged in a giant tax scam to make all the rest of
us pick up their responsibilities.
All of us who pay what we owe are getting stuck by the companies that
are hiding out in this little building down in the Cayman Islands
avoiding the taxes they owe our country. There are no taxes down in the
Cayman Islands, so they operate out of this little building down there,
five-story building, 18,000 companies. They avoid paying the taxes they
owe and stick all the rest of us with the responsibility. That is not
right.
The constitutional amendment our colleagues in the House of
Representatives sent us would protect that behind a wall of a two-
thirds vote, which means we would have an impossible time ever fixing
this problem. It is hard to get a 60-percent vote much less two-thirds.
They would protect every offshore tax haven, every abusive tax shelter,
every unfair tax preference that is in the current code because they
would require a two-thirds vote to change it. That flawed amendment is
not going to pass the Senate--not now, not later this year, not next
year because it, itself, would require a two-thirds vote. It is not
going to happen. So I would say to our colleagues in the other Chamber
that sending us a totally partisan approach with a deeply flawed
constitutional amendment is not going to work. It is not going to help
solve the problem.

Now is the time for us to join in a serious dialogue about solving
the problem--solving the debt threat overhanging the country which will
require not a $1 trillion package as is in the House offering but a $4
trillion package. The occupant of the chair well knows of what I speak.
He was Governor of West Virginia. He dealt with a fiscal crisis in his
State, and he guided his State through that crisis not by operating
just on one side of the aisle but by working together with people on
both sides to come up with solutions, not political slogans.
We are way beyond that. We are within days of a default on the debt
of the United States that would have catastrophic consequences for the
economy of our country.
It is time. It is time, I say to my colleagues, to come together to
do something that can pass--to deal, yes, with the debt limit but also
to deal with the debt itself. It will be an empty gesture if we just
extend the debt limit and we don't deal with the debt itself.
Our leader, to his credit, has put something together that begins to
take ideas from both sides of the aisle to try

[[Page S5039]]

to resolve this crisis. It would save the Nation from an immediate
economic crisis. It would provide a significant downpayment on deficit
reduction--more than $2 trillion--and it would put in place a special
joint congressional committee, equally divided, Democrats and
Republicans, to find additional savings. Also, there is no new revenue
in this plan. Our friends on the other side have thus far said--at
least in the House of Representatives--they can accept no new revenue,
none, not a penny. So our leader has said: OK. I don't like that, but
if that is your line in the sand, for right now we will accept it so we
can find a solution both sides can support. So no new revenue, more
than $2 trillion of spending cuts, and a special joint committee to
come up with a plan to achieve even greater savings. That is a pretty
good offer to the other side to say: We hear you. We want to work with
you because we need a solution.
We are just days away from a true crisis, one that would be self-
inflicted. I say to my colleagues, let's not go there. Let's come
together. We have shown we can do it in the past. We need to do it
now--not with blame, not with finger-pointing, but by saying this is a
time to join together, to stand shoulder to shoulder to prevent
irreparable damage being done to our country.
I say to my colleagues: Now is the time, this day, we have to find a
way to come together.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I note the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the
looming August 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling and making
reforms, or budget cuts at least, that would allow us to show we are
not going to have business as usual in Washington but that we are going
to raise the debt ceiling with the necessary reforms.
Despite the differences in this body, we are all here to share three
concerns:
First, we do know at this point, because of the time it has taken us
to cobble together something that could be put through both of our
Houses and signed by the President, that we have fundamental
differences in the principles of how we should run our government. I
think it is very clear that Republicans have stood for no taxes,
especially in this economic environment. We believe piling taxes on top
of the cost of the Obama health care system that is in the process of
being implemented would keep our businesses from hiring people and
getting this 9.2-percent unemployment rate down. I think we all agree
we need to bring that unemployment rate down, but we have fundamental
differences about what is causing it and how we can solve it.
No. 2, we all agree, I believe, or 95 percent of us agree, that we
cannot default on the debt in our country. I do believe in both Houses
the vast majority believe we should not go into default. The costs of a
default are not being considered nearly enough. The costs of a default,
of interest rates going up, of having to give backpay, having to
correct some of the many issues we will face by having some of the
people who are owed money but not paid, and having to pay interest and
extra interest if we are in default. We cannot allow that to happen. I
think we all agree on that.
We are all troubled with the delay in resolving this issue. The delay
I think has been caused for many reasons. Of course, our fundamental
differences are one. But I believe that although Members of Congress
and leaders in Congress have been talking for a long time, the
President has never put forward a real plan.
The Senate majority leader and the House Speaker have put forward
plans. I believe there is a common ground that can be found between
these two proposals. But they are not the same. In fact, I think the
Republican leader in the Senate has also put forward a plan, and I
think we are seeing the different pieces of the plans that have been
put forward now starting to come together.
I believe the Boehner plan is a good one. I believed in the cut, cap,
and balance legislation, where you cut spending now to make your
downpayment, you cap spending every year for the next 10 years at a
level that brings down the overall deficit, and you send a balanced
budget amendment to the States for ratification. I feel so certain if
we could pass a balanced budget amendment from this Congress and send
it to the States, it would be ratified and it would put us on the real
course for fiscal responsibility, the course that would assure that
Social Security is sound, that Medicare works, and that our children
and grandchildren will not inherit a debilitating debt that hurts our
economy. So I do believe that cut, cap, and balance legislation was the
right way forward. But Congress is split. We have a majority of
Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House. Therefore, we are
not going to get everything that any one of us believes is right.
Certainly we are not going to get the Boehner plan in the Senate. But
it is the right approach, and we will have to take a few steps at a
time and I hope we will be able to come to terms on a way forward with
the principles of cutting spending, putting a cap on spending, and not
raising the debt ceiling any more than the cuts that can be counted.
That is what concerns me about the Reid plan. Senator Reid is calling
for $2.7 trillion in an increase in the debt ceiling. The purpose, as
the President has stated, is to get through the next election in 2012
and not deal with this again. But the next election should not be the
focus. The focus should be, how do we show that our country is on the
right track to get this enormous debt whittled down by whittling down
the deficits and having sound budget principles.
This $2.7 trillion would be the largest debt ceiling increase in the
history of America. The previous largest debt limit increase was $1.9
trillion, which President Obama signed into law in February of last
year.
This debt ceiling increase in Senator Reid's proposal is not paid
for. It offers $1 trillion in cuts for a $2.7 trillion increase. Many
of those cuts are illusory. They are not cuts that can be counted. To
say we are going to label $1 trillion of cuts savings from leaving
Afghanistan and Iraq is not credible. We don't know what the obstacles
are going to be in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq. We also don't know
what we might have to do in the Middle East going forward. Afghanistan
is not settled. We have to have a certain level of stability on the
ground in Afghanistan or we will have wasted the billions we have
already spent and the lives of our military personnel in Afghanistan
because it will go back to the way it was before, a center for
terrorism that will or can come to our country. It did once already. We
have been over there to try to wipe out al-Qaida and the Taliban. We
have been over there losing American lives and spending American
taxpayer dollars to protect our country from another 9/11. To say we
are going to cut $1 trillion in the future over the next 10 years when
we aren't placing the emphasis on what are the conditions on the ground
is not sound policy, and it is certainly not sound national security
policy. So that is illusory.
Then the other parts of the cuts that I think are very hard to
decipher are cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, which we all want to do,
but we don't have the guarantee of those cuts.
I think it is important for us to look at the cuts and try to make
sure that if we are going to raise the debt ceiling, we raise it only
the amount of the actual cuts that we can produce.
In Majority Leader Reid's legislation there is a joint committee.
There is also one in the Boehner bill. In the majority leader's
legislation the committee has to report, but its product doesn't have
to be passed and enacted before the debt ceiling is lifted. That is the
real problem in Senator Reid's proposal. The bill would lose its
expedited status, and the joint committee would dissolve on January 13,
2012 under Senator Reid's proposal and then we would still have the
lifting of the debt ceiling that has already been enacted. That is not
the way to go forward.
The joint committee proposed in the Boehner plan is forced to produce
savings, and the forcing mechanism in this

[[Page S5040]]

case is the fact that the debt limit can't be increased unless the cuts
are enacted. So you will keep the governor on the debt increase by
assuring that there have to be cuts in spending dollar for dollar.
Third, there is no balanced budget amendment included in the Reid
proposal and, in fact, there is no requirement that we even vote on a
balanced budget amendment.
I know that it would be very difficult to pass a balanced budget
amendment right now out of Congress, but I do believe it is the best
thing we could do for the long-term security of our country. So I would
hope as we come together--because we know the reality here. The Reid
bill is not going to pass the House and the Boehner bill is probably
not going to pass the Senate. So we have got to come together with a
plan. Maybe it is a short-term plan that has a dollar-for-dollar cut
along with the raising of the debt ceiling or maybe we can get more
after we dispatch the two bills that are now before the Congress, and
try to put something together that has the best parts of both.
I could not support the Reid plan as it is today and I do support the
Boehner plan, but I also know that neither of them is going to pass the
other House. So I think it is incumbent on us to now go forward and
let's quickly start doing the work that could produce results, and that
is to try to get the best of both of these before the August 2
deadline. I think we have got to be open to what can work that stays
within the principles of no tax increases and no debt ceiling increase
without the same amount of dollars at least to be cut from spending,
with real cuts that can be assured. I think the American public is
looking not for promises but for the assurance in the law that we will
not be able to raise the debt ceiling without some cutting of spending
and reforms that would equal the amount the debt ceiling has increased.
We can go forward with those principles which I think both sides would
agree to at this final few days we have before that debt ceiling is
reached. It is time to vote on these bills and then get down to the
real work of determining what is the best in both that we can pass in
both Houses.

Thank you.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be
rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to engage
in a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the Nation
watches the activities in the Capitol and on Capitol Hill as someone
from the State of Wyoming, where we live within our means and balance
our budget every year, and as a result we actually have a surplus in
the State. Contrast that to what is happening in Washington with an
incredible debt--$14 trillion--more than people can actually fathom.

But people understand spending more than they have or more than comes
in, and families all around the country realize they can't do that.
Well, in America, as a nation we have been doing that for many years--
spending money we don't have, sending out more than comes in, to the
point we have had to borrow and borrow and borrow and borrow. Each time
we borrow too much, which continues to happen, we have to raise the
debt ceiling--the amount of money that can be borrowed.
The President has now asked that we raise the debt ceiling again, but
he has asked that it be raised the largest amount in the history of our
country--in the history of this great land. That has an impact on
people and families all around the country. They are concerned because
they know they can't spend more than they bring in, they can't spend
more than they have.
They think back to the days of John Kennedy saying: ``Ask not what
your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,''
and people in Wyoming are concerned that it may switch one day to: Ask
not what your country can do for you, ask what your country must do for
China because last year, of every dollar we spent in this country, 41
cents of it was borrowed, half of it from overseas, and a lot of it
from China.
So how do we stay a great and strong nation, the leader of the world,
when we owe that kind of money to another country--a country that does
not necessarily have our own best interests at heart?
That is why as this debate and discussion is going on about the debt
ceiling, the debt limit, people in Wyoming tell me their biggest
concern is not the debt limit, it is the debt. The debt is the threat.
It is a threat to our own national security. Those aren't just my
words; those are the words of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
who said the greatest threat to our national security is our debt.
So I am so pleased to be joined on the floor of the Senate by my
colleague from Nebraska, a neighbor, a next-door neighbor, a former
Governor of Nebraska, who, as a Governor, lived with a system where he
had to balance the budget every year, and the buck stopped with him.
So I ask my colleague from Nebraska, a former Cabinet Member who has
run a major Cabinet and a department within the U.S. Government,
perhaps he could share with us what was involved in having to make
those tough decisions and actually being held to make those decisions.
Mr. JOHANNS. I thank the Senator from Wyoming. It is my pleasure to
be on the Senate floor with him and to talk about my experience in
dealing with the reality of a balanced budget amendment.
As I said a couple of weeks ago when I spoke on the floor about this
issue, I heard many come to the floor who said: This is a bad idea.
This is bad policy. Some have even gone so far as to describe it as
almost kind of a radical approach. I have lived with a balanced budget
amendment. I have to say I did not find it to be a radical approach
whatsoever.
In the State of Nebraska where I was Governor for 6 years, and
actually prior to that when I was mayor of the State capital, the
community of Lincoln, I had to balance the budget. I had no choice
whatsoever about that. In fact, in Nebraska, we had an additional
provision. Decades and decades ago, when those who wrote the Nebraska
Constitution started thinking about what kind of State they wanted, I
think they wisely realized that at some point the politicians would try
to hand off or give away the State treasury and promise everything to
everybody for obvious reasons: to get elected, to get reelected.
So in the State constitution they said we can't borrow over $100,000.
So we had two requirements. One was that on an annual basis the budget
had to be balanced, and the spending could not exceed the revenues. The
second requirement was that we couldn't issue any bonds or debt to
balance that budget and, in fact, we go so far as to not have any debt
whatsoever, really. We have a few lease-purchase agreements on some
equipment, but that is it. We don't even have debt for our highways. We
don't lay a mile of concrete for a highway if we don't have the money
to pay for it.
So for those who have described this as sort of a radical approach,
let me describe to them how this approach has worked in our State.
Today in our State, our unemployment rate is 4.1 percent--4.1
percent. I will go across the State very soon and do townhall meetings
in large communities--from the largest, Omaha, to some of our very
smallest. I can almost assure my colleagues that one of the comments I
will hear in our rural communities where they are working hard to be
business friendly and grow jobs and opportunities for their residents,
they will say to me: One of the challenges we have, Mike, is finding
the skill of labor we need to fill the jobs we are creating.
I will also share with my colleagues that this experiment--this
radical approach that some have described--has resulted in a
legislative session that ended early this year, that balanced the
budget, and did not borrow any money. I will also share with my
colleagues that our pensions are funded. There are no stories about
Nebraska pensions are underfunded; that they

[[Page S5041]]

have been borrowing out of the pensions so someday when somebody
retires the pension will not be there for them.
I will wrap up my comments by drawing the contrast. The contrast with
the government that I find here is this: For over 800 days we haven't
had a budget. Under the leadership of my friends on the other side of
the aisle, the Democrats, we have not had a budget for now going on 3
years. We are being asked to approve the largest debt increase in our
Nation's history. That is what this debate is all about.
In addition, we are closing in on $15 trillion worth of debt. The
projection is that in about 4 or 5 years from now we will owe $20
trillion of debt.
My colleague mentioned I was in the Cabinet. When I came to join the
President's Cabinet as the Secretary of Agriculture and I shook the
Lieutenant Governor's hand who has now been the Governor for 8 years--
he is now the President of the National Governors Association--I wished
him well. I did not have to say to him: I am very sorry about all the
debt I have taken on, because there was none. The bills were paid, the
budget was balanced, the pensions were funded, the unemployment rate
was low, and he has continued that conservative legacy.
By comparison, when Barack Obama leaves the Presidency, he will tell
his successor: I ran up the largest debt in our Nation's history--
larger than any President in front of me. That is the legacy he will
leave behind for his children and his grandchildren and ours, and that
is the sobering reality of today's debate.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator
from Nebraska. I think about the fact that he had to use honest
figures, honest accounting.
I see now a proposal by the majority leader that, to me, seems to be
full of accounting gimmicks, tricks, things such as using money as
savings that was never intended to be spent at all, saying we will save
all of this money by not being at war in Iraq or Afghanistan for the
next 10 years and counting $1 trillion in savings when there was never
even an intention to spend that in the first place. I don't think
anyone in this body or on Capitol Hill believes we will be at surge
levels for the next 10 years in 2 wars, Afghanistan and Iraq.
So I ask my colleague from Nebraska--and we are also joined by our
colleague from South Dakota--he couldn't have done something like that
in balancing his budget in Nebraska?
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, we would never have done that. Had I
walked into the unicameral for my State of the State Address and done
things such as are being proposed here today, I literally would have
been run out. The State senators would have looked at the Governor and
said: We need a new Governor. And I think they would have joined in a
very bipartisan response to that kind of approach.
My colleague is absolutely right. I looked through the proposal, and
I have to say, in all due respect to the majority leader, this isn't
going to get the support I think he hopes for. It isn't going to
happen. It is going to be voted down. It will not go to the finish line
because people just can't support it.
This idea that somehow we are going to get a savings because we are
not going to be funding the surge levels in Afghanistan, well, no one
was going to do that. The President wasn't asking for it. That money
was never requested. So to grab that out, as somebody pointed out--and
I wish I could remember who--in a column today, they said that is like
trying to grab a savings based upon the fact that we will not be
invading Canada this year.
Well, yes, we are not going to invade Canada, but that is not budget
savings, and it is not a budget savings to somehow claim we are not
going to fund the Afghanistan war for the next 10 years at surge levels
because that was never anticipated.
I want to solve this problem, but we have to be real with the
American people about how we are solving this problem--with real
savings. I know it is painful. My goodness, I have been there. I have
cut budgets before. I have had to lay off people. But I think we have
to just be straight with the American people and say this is what it is
going to take to get there.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, my colleague from South Dakota is here,
and he has been a Member of this body longer than I have. To me, this
debt ceiling increase seems to be the largest in history by any
standard, whether we include inflation or not. I think the previous
largest one was $1.9 trillion, and that was also with this President.
So when we think about this President and what he inherited and where
we are now, it seems to me--I would ask my colleague from South Dakota
to respond--it just seems he is making it worse.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I certainly echo what has been said by my
neighbors, my colleagues from Nebraska and Wyoming. Their States, as
well as mine, all have a balanced budget amendment that requires our
States to live within our means. Our States do it. They do it the old-
fashioned way. They do it by--in our case, in the State of South
Dakota, this year--having to make some hard decisions about spending.
But they balanced their budget, and they did it without raising taxes,
which I think is a great model for what we ought to be doing in
Washington, DC.
As the Senator from Wyoming has pointed out, this is the largest
requested increase in the debt ceiling in history. At $2.4 trillion--
and, of course, I think we are going to be asked at some point to vote
on the Democratic leader's proposal, which, as both of my colleagues
have pointed out, doesn't get us there.
If we even use the standard I think everybody realizes makes a lot of
sense--and that is if we are going to increase the debt limit by $2.4
trillion, we also ought to look at how we reduce spending by $2.4
trillion. That way we are getting a dollar-for-dollar reduction in
spending, and we are fundamentally addressing the real issue, which
isn't the debt limit, it is the debt.
We all talk about the debt limit, and it is looming, looking us right
in the eye right now. But the real issue is the fact that year over
year over year we continue to spend more than we take in.
We are not living within our means. Both Senators have talked about a
balanced budget amendment. I was here as a freshman Congressman in
1997, the last time that was voted on. It was voted on in the Senate.
It never made it to the House because it needed a two-thirds vote, and
it got 66 votes in the Senate. Had it been able to pass here and come
to the House, I think we would have passed it.
I cannot help but think how much better our fiscal situation would be
today had we been able to do that back in 1997, because at that time
the overall Federal debt was $5 trillion. Today it is $14 trillion. So
there has been a $9 trillion increase in the Federal debt in that short
amount of time.
It is important we tackle this issue. It is important we do it in a
way so the American people know we are serious--that this is not
gimmicks, this is not smoke and mirrors and all the things that I think
make people in this country so cynical about the way Washington, DC,
operates.
As the Senator mentioned, the Reid proposal on the debt limit
essentially counts over $1 trillion in savings that were never going to
be spent in the first place. So it is a gimmick and it is not real. It
is phony. We all know that.
We have to get real. We have to put forward a serious effort if, one,
we are going to convince the American people we are serious about this,
but, more importantly, if we are going to do something meaningful about
getting this spending and debt situation under control.
I hope we will be able to defeat that when it comes to the floor and
actually do something, if we can get the House bill over here, which
has not only spending cuts in the near term but also a process whereby
we can get some entitlement reform that deals with the big drivers of
Federal spending; that is, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and
then also get a vote on a balanced budget amendment such as all of our
States have on the books and which has enabled our States to live
within their means, not spend money they do not have, and continue to,
in spite of this down economy, perform above the average.
I think of all of our States, probably in terms of unemployment, in
terms of economic performance--if you look at them relative to other
areas around

[[Page S5042]]

the country--living within their means. It is a good model if you want
to have a good, strong economy and create jobs for the people in your
States. That is something we ought to be doing at the Federal level,
and that is why it is so important we take the right approach. The bill
that will come over from the House of Representatives does that. The
bill that has been proposed by the Senate Democratic leader does not.
Mr. BARRASSO. It is interesting because my colleague from South
Dakota mentioned this figure, this two point some trillion dollars.
People in Wyoming last week said: How do they come up with that number?
Like the Senator, I agree that for every $1 they want to increase the
debt limit, they should say we should find $1 of real savings, honest
savings, savings you can point to, as the Senator needed to do as
Governor, and as we believe here.
That is what the approach they are dealing with in the House does.
They have come up with a way to raise the debt ceiling, deal with
avoiding a default, and they extend this for a number of months.
People say: Well, how do you get this $2.4 trillion number? The
President had a White House press conference last week, on July 22, and
he said--it is astonishing. The President of the United States told the
country:

The only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend
this debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013.

Not extend the debt ceiling so we can avoid default, not so we can
focus on jobs and the economy and the overall debt and the spending,
but so that--as he said, his bottom line, the only bottom line, is that
we have to extend it beyond the next election.
Then the Treasury Secretary was on one of the television shows on
July 24, and he said:

Most important, we have to lift this threat of default . .
. for the next 18 months. We have to take that threat off the
table through the election. . . .

This debt is the threat. This debt of nearly $15 trillion, going to
over $20 trillion in the next couple years, to me is the threat. The
elections can take care of themselves. I think the American people will
be shocked, astonished, and disappointed to hear that is the
President's only bottom line.
I do not know what the Senator's comments or thoughts are on that,
but I am expecting better.
Mr. THUNE. If you think about what this debate ought to be about, it
ought to be about America's economic security. It ought to be about
making sure we are putting the country on a sustainable fiscal path and
creating the conditions for economic growth, and I would argue there is
a direct correlation between those two. If we do not get spending and
debt under control, I think we are going to bankrupt the country, we
are going to increase interest rates, we are going to make it more
difficult and more expensive for businesses in this country to create
jobs. So clearly there is a direct correlation between the issue of
spending and debt and the economy. But the economy and the implications
of what we do here on the economy ought to animate everything we do. We
ought to be thinking about: How is this going to impact the economy? We
should not be thinking about politics. That is why it was disturbing to
hear the President say his prerequisite in all this is that we get
through the next election. To me, that was a statement that was
profoundly about politics and certainly not about America's economic
security, which ought to be first and foremost in our minds.
Subsequent to that, even yesterday, you had members of the
President's team suggesting this might somehow disrupt the Christmas
vacation. I thought: You know, of all the things we ought to be
thinking about right now, the next election, the next holiday--those
probably are not going to be consequential if we do not take steps to
address the issue before us today; that is, this massive increase in
our Federal debt, the year-over-year deficits we continue to run, the
fact that we continue to live way outside of our means. That is what I
think the American people want to see us focused on. I think that is
what the people of South Dakota certainly want to see us focused on as
well.
Mr. JOHANNS. That is exactly what the people of Nebraska want to see
us focused on.
The debate that is occurring now absolutely is one of the most
important debates we have had literally in the history of this country.
It was encapsulized in a statement in a column today that I read from a
man I have a lot of respect for, Charles Krauthammer. He said this
about this debate. He said:

He could not be more right. This is a debate that must occur, as
uncomfortable as it may be. Think of where we have been as a nation in
the last year and a half. Literally, when the President came to office,
the first thing he wanted us to do was to pass a trillion-dollar
stimulus plan, if you factor in the interest that was going to be paid,
on promises that it was going to fix the economy and employ people,
that unemployment would not go over 8 percent.
What happened? Unemployment shot beyond that. Today we see the growth
of our economy is literally pitiful. There is no way this economic
growth can deal with employing more people.
Then what was the next thing? A health care bill that, quite
honestly, the vast majority of Americans did not want. And by the day,
story after story, analysis after analysis comes out and says all the
promises made during this health care debate by the President and the
Democrats will not be fulfilled. There was a story yesterday that this
is not going to bring health care costs down. This increases health
care costs, and it is one thing after another thing after another
thing.
The American people spoke loudly and clearly in November. They said:
Get the fiscal condition of the United States under control. I will say
this. I do not think anybody is expecting miracles. It took us decades
to get in this position. It is going to take concerted, conservative
effort to get out of this position over a period of time. But it is on
debates such as this where this must start. It is on debates such as
this where we must force this government to be smaller, to be more
efficient; otherwise, the legacy we leave behind for our children and
our grandchildren is $20 trillion of debt in 4 more short years. They
will have their own wars to fight. I wish they would be free of war.
But they will have their own wars to fight, their own flu pandemics to
deal with, their own items on their agenda--education or health care,
whatever, that they want to improve--and where will they begin? They
will begin with a $20 trillion debt in 4 years. That, as a nation,
should be unacceptable to us. That is why we need to do everything we
can at every stage to turn this around and start this Nation on the
right course.
Mr. THUNE. I also had the opportunity to read the very column the
Senator from Nebraska is referring to, the Krauthammer column this
morning, and I was struck by many of the same things the Senator
observed. I think it is important to note that we are a nation
historically that has believed in a limited role for the government.
That is what distinguishes us in many respects from some of our
European allies. I think what this debate on the debt limit does, with
the broader debates we need to be having here about spending and debt
and budgets--that is, if we ever had a debate on a budget. As the
Senator said, we have not had now a budget in 821 days. April 29, 2009,
was the last time this Senate passed a budget. So it is hard to talk
about these big issues we need to be focused on when you do not even
get a budget on the floor of the Senate to have an opportunity to
debate and vote upon.
In fact, when you think about the fact that we spend $3.7 trillion
annually of the American people's tax money, you would think you would
have some idea, some blueprint, some path of how you are going to spend
that. Yet we have not had that here. So we have not had an opportunity
to debate that budget.

[[Page S5043]]

But this does get at the heart of a very big philosophical
difference. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have a view of
government that is much more expansive, which is why I think they can
explain passing the multitrillion dollar health care bill a year ago
and the trillion dollar stimulus bill and the new CLASS Act, which is
going to be another entitlement program that will end up running huge
deficits into the future.
I do not think that is what the American people have as a vision for
this country. I think we need to get back to a role, a size for our
government that is consistent with the historical average, the
historical norm. It might surprise some of my colleagues to know, if
you go back to the formative stages of our Nation's history, in the
year 1800, we only spent 2 percent of our GDP on our government--2
percent. This year, we are going to spend over 24 percent. Arguably,
life has gotten a lot more complicated. There is a lot more going on in
this country, and certainly there is a responsibility that government
has. But we have gotten away from the concept that I think is the
foundation of this great country; that was a belief in a limited role
for the Federal Government, not this expansive, sort of Western
European social democracy type approach which the Senator from Nebraska
alluded to.
I certainly think the people in my State of South Dakota, and I would
argue in Wyoming and Nebraska, as I said before, have a history and a
tradition and a heritage of living within their means. Also, I think
they have an understanding of what government should and should not do.
I certainly believe the people whom I represent want us to get back to
that. And it starts here. It starts now. It starts by getting spending
under control, by putting Federal spending on a downward trajectory
instead of this consistent incline we have seen. In the last 2 years,
we have seen non-national security discretionary spending increase by
over 24 percent. If you add the stimulus spending in there, it was 84
percent. That is how much spending has increased in the last 2 years of
this administration.
That has to stop. I think the American people sent a loud, clear
message in November of last year, and it is incumbent upon us to have
listened to that message and to do everything we can to get this train
turned around. I think we are going to have a big fight over that
because the other side believes the way you fix this debt crisis is to
increase your revenues, to raise taxes, which would be a huge mistake,
particularly now in the middle of an economic downturn.
It starts by getting spending under control. It starts by keeping tax
rates and regulations low on our job creators in this country, and
creating conditions that are favorable to economic growth and job
creation, as opposed to what we are seeing now, which is more and more
regulation, higher taxes, more mandates--all the things that make it
more difficult for our job creators to do what they do the best; that
is, to get people in this country back to work.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record the column that has been referred to, the Charles
Krauthammer column from this morning's Washington Post called ``The
Great Divide.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, July 29, 2011]

(By Charles Krauthammer)

The Great Divide

We're in the midst of a great four-year national debate on
the size and reach of government, the future of the welfare
state, indeed, the nature of the social contract between
citizen and state. The distinctive visions of the two
parties--social-democratic vs. limited-government--have
underlain every debate on every issue since Barack Obama's
inauguration: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, health-care
reform, financial regulation, deficit spending. Everything.
The debt ceiling is but the latest focus of this fundamental
divide.
The sausage-making may be unsightly, but the problem is not
that Washington is broken, that ridiculous ubiquitous cliche.
The problem is that these two visions are in competition, and
the definitive popular verdict has not yet been rendered.
We're only at the midpoint Obama won a great victory in
2008 that he took as a mandate to transform America toward
European-style social democracy The subsequent
counterrevolution delivered to that project a staggering
rebuke in November 2010. Under our incremental system,
however, a rebuke delivered is not a mandate conferred. That
waits definitive resolution, the rubber match of November
2012.
I have every sympathy with the conservative
counterrevolutionaries. Their containment of the Obama
experiment has been remarkable. But reversal--roll-back, in
Cold War parlance--is simply not achievable until
conservatives receive a mandate to govern from the White
House.
Lincoln is reputed to have said: I hope to have God on my
side, but I must have Kentucky. I don't know whether
conservatives have God on their side (I keep getting sent to
His voice mail), but I do know that they don't have
Kentucky--they don't have the Senate, they don't have the
White House. And under our constitutional system, you cannot
govern from one house alone. Today's resurgent conservatism,
with its fidelity to constitutionalism, should be
particularly attuned to this constraint; imposed as it is by
a system of deliberately separated--and mutually limiting--
powers.
Given this reality, trying to force the issue--turn a
blocking minority into a governing authority--is not just
counter-constitutional in spirit but self-destructive in
practice.
Consider the Boehner Plan for debt reduction. The Heritage
Foundation's advocacy arm calls it ``regrettably
insufficient.'' Of course it is. That's what happens when you
control only half a branch. But the plan's achievements
are significant. It is all cuts, no taxes. It establishes
the precedent that debt-ceiling increases must be
accompanied by equal spending cuts. And it provides half a
year to both negotiate more fundamental reform (tax and
entitlement) and keep the issue of debt reduction
constantly in the public eye.
I am somewhat biased about the Boehner Plan because for
weeks I've been arguing (in this column and elsewhere) for
precisely such a solution: a two-stage debt-ceiling hike
consisting of a half-year extension with dollar-for-dollar
spending cuts, followed by intensive negotiations on
entitlement and tax reform. It's clean. It's understandable.
It's veto-proof. (Obama won't dare.) The Republican House
should have passed it weeks ago.
After all, what is the alternative? The Reid Plan with its
purported $2 trillion of debt reduction? More than half of
that comes from not continuing surge-level spending in Iraq
and Afghanistan for the next 10 years. Ten years? We're out
of Iraq in 150 days. It's all a preposterous ``saving'' from
an entirely fictional expenditure.
The Congressional Budget Office has found that Harry Reid's
other discretionary savings were overestimated by $400
billion. Not to worry, I am told. Reid has completely plugged
that gap. There will be no invasion of Canada next year (a
bicentennial this-time-we're-serious 1812 do-over). Huge
savings. Huge.
The Obama Plan? There is no Obama plan. And the McConnell
Plan, a final resort that punts the debt issue to Election
Day, would likely yield no cuts at all.
Obama faces two massive problems--jobs and debt. They're
both the result of his spectacularly failed Keynesian gamble:
massive spending that left us a stagnant economy with high
and chronic unemployment--and a staggering debt burden. Obama
is desperate to share ownership of this failure. Economic
dislocation from a debt-ceiling crisis nicely serves that
purpose--if the Republicans play along. The perfect out:
Those crazy Tea Partyers ruined the recovery!
Why would any conservative collaborate with that ploy?
November 2012 constitutes the new conservatism's one chance
to restructure government and change the ideological course
of the country. Why risk forfeiting that outcome by offering
to share ownership of Obama's wreckage?

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 4
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. I wanted to do that because I also want to have printed
in the Record--and I will read just a couple of paragraphs--a letter
that appeared in today's Casper Star Tribune by Eric Mitchell. It is
titled ``Smarter than you think.'' He says:

I think they think I'm not so smart because I'm too young
to know what they're doing, like raising the national debt.
Don't they know that I owe the country about $45,000? I'm
only 10 years old. I could buy a lot with $45,000. I could
almost buy a home, I could buy property, I could buy a boat
and get fish for family and friends.

He is from Crowheart, WY, a small community.
He said:

I would buy guns and ammunition to hunt for food for my
family. I could buy books so I could learn more. Forty-five
thousand dollars could buy a lot of stuff. That's more than
may dad earns. But it wouldn't buy everything.

This is a 10-year-old. He said:

[[Page S5044]]

Government shouldn't try to buy everything. It is my job
and the people's job to buy the things we need. I don't want
the government to think for me. They don't know that I'm a
little brother who doesn't like it when my big brothers tell
me what to do, because they aren't always responsible for
their own things. I don't tell my brothers what to do with
their money. I'm smarter than they think I am. They should
follow the rules.

Here you have a youngster in Wyoming who knows of values, who is
raised in a family where they live within their means, lives in a State
where we balance our budget every year, and I think the lesson Eric has
for the people of Wyoming and the people of this country is one we
should listen to: We should live within our means, not spend more than
we have, not continue to borrow. And the threat to our Nation, our
greatest threat to our national security continues to be the debt, and
it is incumbent upon this institution to deal with that.
I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Casper Star Tribune, July 29, 2011]

Smarter Than You Think

(By Eric Mitchell)

What does the government think of me?
Money. Like the banking commercials, I'm not a name, I'm a
number.
I think they think I'm not so smart because I'm too young
to know what they're doing, like raising the national debt.
Don't they know that I owe the country about $45,000? I'm
only 10 years old. I could buy a lot with $45,000. I could
almost buy a home, I could buy property, I could buy a boat
and get fish for my family and friends.
I would buy guns and ammunition to hunt for food for my
family. I could buy books so I could learn more. Forty-five
thousand dollars could buy a lot of stuff. That's more than
my dad earns. But it wouldn't buy everything.
Government shouldn't try to buy everything.
It is my job, and the people's job, to buy the things we
need. I don't want the government to think for me. They don't
know I'm a little brother who doesn't like it when my big
brothers tell me what to do, because they aren't always
responsible for their own things. I don't tell my brothers
what to do with their money.
I'm smarter than they think I am. They should follow the
rules.

____________________