[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 84 (Thursday, May 18, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1719-S1721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Debt Ceiling

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, debt is front and center in the national 
conversation again. That is entirely reasonable. We have a debt ceiling 
conversation right now about America taking care of our debts and our 
responsibilities, which we are a responsible nation, and we are going 
to do. But we should also have a grownup conversation about our 
spending to say: Are we spending on our priorities? Because when you 
have $31 trillion--actually, scratch that--$31.4 trillion because $400 
billion is not a rounding error--$31.4 trillion in total national debt, 
we should pay attention to this, especially when we are currently 
adding $1 trillion in new debt every single year, and it continues to 
accelerate.
  Recently, someone asked me: When does it get hard? When do we pass 
the point?
  And I actually had to painfully say to them: 10 years ago because in 
the last 10 years, our debt has continued to accelerate like a rock 
rolling downhill, and it is going to be harder and harder to be able to 
manage this. At some point, we have got to be able to stop and say: 
Inflation is going up; challenges that are in our economy are 
increasing; we are spending almost as much on interest as we are on 
defense. At what point do we stop and say: We have got to be able to 
fix this?
  Well, I have a perspective. The first step on actually talking about 
debt and deficit is actually taking it seriously and saying: What are 
we spending on that is a priority, and what are we spending on that is 
not a priority? Again, it is not unreasonable to be able to say that 
would be nice to do, but we don't have the money to do that. Let's set 
that aside.
  And for whatever reason, in this town, anytime you talk about 
reducing spending of whatever percentage or whatever amount, everyone 
freaks out immediately, like, oh, you can't; there is no way we can 
reduce spending in government.
  So we started, 7 years ago, a habit of our staff that we produce a 
book called ``Federal Fumbles.'' Every year we put out the ``Federal 
Fumbles'' guide, and that is just a set of ideas to say these are areas 
we believe the Federal Government has dropped the ball.
  The Federal Government, and our Agencies, we had a responsibility to 
handle American taxpayer dollars prudently and wisely, but that didn't 
happen. So we asked the question: Is this really what we need to spend 
for? In a nation that is keeping up with our infrastructure, of our 
national defense, of education, of so many different expenses, and 
things that are truly governmental, we asked a simple question: With 
$31.4 trillion in total debt, is that what we need to spend our dollars 
on?
  Now, just to set context because, again, this is difficult to be able 
to do, when you talk about millions and billions and trillions, it gets 
easy to go, those all sound alike. So they are similar. So people throw 
out millions of dollars or billions of dollars or trillions of dollars, 
and you just think, OK, I don't even understand what that is anymore.
  So I break it down, as I have in the past--I break it down to seconds 
because that is something I can understand. A million seconds is 12 
days--12 days. That is a million seconds. A billion seconds is 32 
years.
  So there is a big difference between a million and a billion: 12 days 
in 32 years; a trillion seconds is almost 32,000 years.
  So let me knock that past us again. A million seconds is 12 days; a 
billion seconds, 32 years; a trillion seconds, almost 32,000 years.
  And to put this into context of $31.4 trillion in total debt, that is 
995,000 years--almost a million years of seconds--to get to $31.4 
trillion.
  The numbers here are large, and they are overwhelming. So again, why 
don't we talk about ways that we can actually save money. My reasonable 
conversation with ``Federal Fumbles'' every year is just to say: Let's 
talk about it. Is this really how we want to be able to spend 
Americans' taxpayers dollars?
  We set up a top 10 list that we listed out some of the things that we 
just say, OK, of the 50 different examples--and we don't try to go into 
every single spending area, but we lay out in the guide for fumbles 50 
different examples and just try to ask the question: Is this the best 
way to be able to spend America's dollars? Again, we have all got 
different perspectives and different ideas on it. I am just asking the 
question.
  For instance, last year, the State Department did a grant to Ecuador 
to host 12 drag shows in Ecuador with American tax dollars. Now, we may 
have different opinions in this room on drag shows. I am just asking 
the simple question: Is the best use of American tax dollars to 
actually fund drag shows in Ecuador with U.S. tax dollars? I don't 
believe that it is.
  Last year, we actually did a different funding through the State 
Department that was actually done--actually, this was the National 
Science Foundation. Excuse me. Strike that. It seems like a State 
Department thing. The National Science Foundation last year did a study 
of butterflies in Europe. So we funded, with American taxpayer dollars, 
a butterfly study in Germany where we paid a Swedish scientist to study 
butterflies in Germany.

  I am not real sure American tax dollars was the best use of that, but 
that was one of the grants that was done last year.
  Last year, there was also an NEA grant that was done to set up a 
display in Brooklyn for the Sergeant Pepper's

[[Page S1720]]

Lonely Hearts Club Band, which, by the way, is not even an American 
band. And I am not sure why we had to pay Federal tax dollars to be 
able to do that. My simple question is always: Why are tax dollars 
being taken out of Oklahoma to be able to do that?
  Always popular, we had a $350,000 grant to study smart toilets. That 
was one of the grants that we actually paid for with our Federal tax 
dollars last year.
  We also had a grant that was done studying Colonial Mexican 
Soundscapes. I am sure Colonial Mexican Soundscapes are fascinating, 
but we paid for a researcher to travel to Mexico and then to be able to 
write a series about the sounds of Colonial Mexico and how they could 
be used to be able to influence communities.
  We, last year, did a study on helmets and seatbelts in Ghana to be 
able to study whether seatbelts and helmets were effective for saving 
lives in Ghana. Can I just go ahead and answer that question for free? 
Seatbelts and helmets are a good idea. They save lives--free. I can go 
ahead and give you that advice.
  How do I know that? Because we have already spent millions of dollars 
in other studies here in the United States, but, instead, we spent 
money in Ghana studying helmets to see if they are actually a good idea 
there. And amazingly, they discovered, yes, they are.
  There was also a grant that was done last year--I have to just walk 
this one through. This was at the Springfield Art Museum in Missouri. 
There was a grant to be on a display, an installation of the exhibit at 
a museum called ``Yoko Ono: Mend Piece.''
  Now, let me just read this to you. It is a simple white room where 
shattered cups and saucers are placed on a table and participants are 
asked to mend the fragments together using common household items like 
twine, glue, scissors, and tape, and the resulting works are displayed 
on nearby shelves as evidence of the power of collective action.
  Again, I am not opposed to fixing broken saucers in a public place 
and displaying them. All I am asking is: Why did Oklahomans work 
overtime last year to pay their tax bill to fund doing the Yoko Ono 
white room, where people fixed broken saucers? I don't have a good 
answer for that yet, by the way. I am still trying to be able to get 
that.
  If you like wine country, great. You helped pay for it--one of the 
highest income areas in the world is Napa Valley, CA--one of the 
highest income areas in the entire world.
  The good folks of Oklahoma helped pay for a wine pedestrian trail 
through Napa Valley because apparently Napa Valley didn't have enough 
cash to be able to pay for the 8-mile walking trail through wine 
country--some of the most expensive real estate in the entire world. So 
the taxpayers in Oklahoma had to pay for that wine country tour trail.
  If you like traveling to Hawaii, enjoy the trip. When you get there, 
if you go to a farmers market, you will find out that you helped pay 
for that farmers market because the farmers markets in Hawaii received 
$3.4 million to be able to fund the farmers markets.
  If you go to New York City and pay for a very high-dollar ticket to 
get into a private location in the Metropolitan Opera to be able to 
watch the opera, you will feel safer, I am sure, when you go to the 
Metropolitan Opera because almost three-quarters of a million dollars 
was given to the Metropolitan Opera in New York to help them install a 
new fire-suppression system with Federal tax dollars.
  If you like traveling to Paris and you go to a butcher shop in Paris, 
you may be fascinated to know that since the 13th century, apparently 
butchers in Paris have come up with their own private language. It is 
like a supersecret private language among butchers in Paris. It is 
fascinating for the French to study, but unfortunately the American 
taxpayers paid for a study of French butchers' private language for 
fear that it is diminishing and fading away. So American tax dollars 
paid for this study in France to study the secret language of butchers 
in Paris. I can't tell you why.
  You may know the story of the--let me see if I can pull this out--the 
parable of the sower. It is a famous Biblical story, the parable of the 
sower. This particular version of the parable of the sower was actually 
a little bit different. What your tax dollars paid for is actually an 
event that was done to teach climate futurism and to be able to use the 
parable of the sower from the Bible but to reteach a new religion 
called Earthseed, using the Biblical story of the parable of the sower 
and talking about humanity's destiny to be able to leave Earth for 
other planets. It wasn't the writing of a book; it was a conference for 
teachers to make sure teachers know how to teach this new version of 
the parable of the sower and about the religion of Earthseed to their 
kids. That was done with your tax dollars.
  Not leaving Ghana alone, there was also a study done in Ghana last 
year--not only did we do one on seatbelt studies and helmet studies in 
Ghana, we also did an interview project that was almost $200,000 in 
Ghana to interview taxicab drivers and truckdrivers to ask them about 
how difficult driving has become with climate change, if it is harder 
to drive now in Ghana based on climate change. Your tax dollars paid 
for that.
  If you don't like that I am discussing anything on climate change and 
you may disagree with that, well, perfect, because there was also a 
fund that was done with your tax dollars in the National Science 
Foundation to study how to influence people who disagree on the issue 
of climate change, with a study that was done for $400,000. It was a 
study on pluralistic ignorance gaps in climate change and to be able to 
determine how to speak to people, as the study says, who are 
``ignorant'' on climate change and to be able to reeducate them on 
that. So if you disagree on this issue, we are also studying how to be 
able to reeducate you on this issue.
  Last year, we also spent $991 million on soft-sided facilities--those 
are called tents--along our border with Mexico. Now, best estimates on 
this: There are about 2 million people who illegally crossed the border 
last year. If you run the numbers on it, we spent somewhere around $500 
a person on the tent facility they were processed through just to 
travel across the border.
  Listen, we have differences of opinion on lots of issues. I am 
respectful of that. I understand the people of Oklahoma don't think 
like people in other areas of the country. I also understand that not 
everyone in Oklahoma thinks the same way, and I am respectful of that. 
But I have yet to find anyone who wants their tax dollars wasted. 
People literally work overtime to be able to feed their families. They 
are working two and three jobs. In April, when they pay their taxes, 
they want to know it went to roads and infrastructure and national 
security. What we reveal in ``Federal Fumbles'' is, yes, some of that 
was done, but also some of it was done because we lacked oversight, and 
things were just wasted and thrown out the door.
  We did a multithousand-page omnibus bill at the end of last year that 
literally no one had read--no one. There were no committee hearings in 
the Senate on appropriations at all last year, and trillions of dollars 
were spent, and no one knows what they were spent on.
  We try to bring here some of the ways American tax dollars were 
spent. I am not just complaining about it; we bring this up to say: 
What are we going to do about it? Are we going to do more oversight, to 
ask more questions, and to spend money on our priorities and not spend 
money on what is not?
  So we put out ``Federal Fumbles.'' You can go to the website 
Lankford.senate.gov to be able to download it and to be able to look at 
it. The goal of this is to get us all thinking about $31.4 trillion in 
Federal debt. Can we focus on spending on our priorities and target 
areas that are not?
  Mr. President, can I do one quick addendum to my protracted speech on 
``Federal Fumbles''? I have a staff member named Phillip Moran who 
worked like crazy this year actually pulling all these details together 
and some other team members who really help me a tremendous amount to 
do the research on this. As you can imagine, it is not one person who 
does this. I have a fantastic team that works very hard on this.
  I want to say from this floor so the Oklahomans back home can also 
know,

[[Page S1721]]

there are some great people working for them every single day. I 
appreciate that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.