[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 849-852]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        IMPORTANT PUBLIC ISSUES

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise to speak about the issues that I 
think are most important to the American public. I appreciated the 
opportunity I had last evening, along with the Presiding Officer, to 
sit and listen to the President's State of the Union Address, which is 
an annual rite of passage where the President lays out his blueprint 
and his vision for the next year. In those remarks he did, as he did 
last year, touch on a number of themes that I think speak to issues 
that are important for the country to face.
  Certainly, there were statements in that speech I agree with, in 
terms of the things he said we need to be focused on. There are some 
statements with which I did not agree. But in terms of the broader 
agenda, what strikes me about the speech is he talked about the need 
for tax reform, which is something I agree with. I think it is an issue 
of competitiveness. He talked about medical malpractice reform, which 
is something many of us have been trying to get to be part of the 
health care debate in this country for a long time. Unfortunately, that 
got left on the cutting room floor last year. He talked about 
strengthening Social Security and entitlement reform, also a critical 
priority if we are serious about getting spending and debt under 
control. He also talked about regulatory reform, looking at government 
reform and the types of actions we might be able to take to streamline 
or shrink or make more efficient the Federal Government. He also talked 
about the importance of enacting trade agreements, and I could not 
agree more. I think trade is a critical part of our economy. Export 
opportunities for businesses in this country would create economic 
growth. It would create jobs. Unfortunately, again, those are trade 
agreements that have been stalled out here for some time in the 
Congress.
  What strikes me about the speech is this. Last year, we heard a lot 
of the same themes. The President this year, I forgot to mention, 
talked about a 5-

[[Page 850]]

year freeze on spending. Last year, he talked about a 3-year freeze on 
spending. He talked about trade agreements 1 year ago. Many of those 
same themes were struck 1 year ago. Yet we have not seen the results of 
the rhetoric. What I would argue to the American people and to all my 
colleagues is, it is important that we judge people not by their 
rhetoric but by their actions. Don't watch what we say, watch what we 
do. I think that is true of anyone in public life. We all need to be 
judged by what we do and whether we are following through with what we 
say we are going to do.
  So when the President talks about those priorities, I could not agree 
more. But, frankly, in order for any of those things to happen, it is 
going to take Presidential leadership. If we are going to do something 
on tax reform, if we are going to do something on entitlement reform, 
if we are going to do something about spending and debt, the President 
is going to have to step forward with bold proposals in order to 
accomplish that because bold things, big things, need to be done on a 
bipartisan basis.
  The opposite example of that we saw a year ago, when the health care 
reform bill was being debated on the floor of the Senate. This is 
something that impacts literally one-sixth of the American economy. Yet 
you had a bill that passed the Senate without a single Republican vote. 
In fact, in most cases Republicans were not included, were not 
consulted, did not have input into that legislation. So you had a bill 
that literally impacts one-sixth of the American economy pass out of 
this Chamber on a party-line vote. That is historic. Because in most 
cases, if you look throughout our Nation's history, when this country 
needs to do big things, there is a bipartisan effort to try to get a 
bill that can attract broad bipartisan support.
  So as much as I support many of the things the President said last 
night, I would argue that the proof is in the pudding. We are going to 
wait and see now whether his actions comport with his words because the 
talk about spending and debt rings hollow if, in fact, you are not 
willing to take on spending in this country, spending in our 
government, and willing to take on the issue of entitlement reform. In 
fact, notwithstanding the President's talk last year about a 3-year 
freeze on spending, we saw the largest buildup, the most massive 
expansion of government we have seen literally since the 1960s.
  The health care bill is a $2\1/2\ trillion new expenditure for the 
Federal Government when it is fully implemented, at a cost, I believe, 
to be much larger than that over time when you start seeing these costs 
pile up and more and more people shifted over into the government 
program.
  Hopefully, we are going to have a vote here in the Senate. I believe 
we will have a vote. Our leader has indicated that we will get a vote 
on repealing health care reform. In my view, before this begins to get 
implemented, it would make sense to throw it overboard and start over 
and do this right and do it in a way that attracts bipartisan support 
and actually does something to drive down the cost of health care 
rather than increasing it because what we have seen already is what we 
predicted would happen; that is, insurance rates are going up, not 
down. The massive taxes on that bill, of course, get passed on, so 
consumers end up paying more for their health care, not less. I would 
argue that we are going to see some disastrous results from some of the 
pay-fors in the bill.
  The so-called CLASS Act, which is another new entitlement program, is 
something that even the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, a 
Democratic chairman, a year ago when this was being debated, said is a 
Ponzi scheme of the highest order, something Bernie Madoff would be 
proud of. It has a tail on it that is going to create deficits in the 
outyears and make the financial fiscal picture we face even worse.
  There are so many things about this bill that argue for us starting 
over and doing it right. But I want to say this morning, because I want 
to focus specifically on this issue of spending and debt, that much has 
been made of the fact that we are going to have a vote coming up. On 
March 4, the continuing resolution expires, at which point we will have 
to decide what we are going to do in terms of funding the government. I 
hope that debate or the lead-up to that vote sparks a debate about 
spending because if we don't start getting spending under control, this 
problem we have continues to snowball. We have a $14.3 trillion debt.
  The other point I would make is there is another big vote looming 
sometime between late March and early May--in the April timeframe most 
likely--where we are going to have to raise the debt limit. We are 
already $14.3 trillion in debt as a nation, and we are going to have to 
extend the nation's borrowing authority above that so that we can 
finance the government. We have maxed out the credit card. We cannot do 
this any longer. We don't have the luxury of time. When we are facing a 
$14.3 trillion debt, much of which we owe to other countries around the 
world, we put ourselves at great peril. We put our economy at great 
peril.
  I would argue it is a national security issue, and I am not the only 
one saying that. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike 
Mullen, said a few months back that the greatest threat to America's 
national security is our national debt. That is the top ranking 
military official in this country saying it is not the--when we talk 
about the greatest threat to America's national security, he could have 
talked about al-Qaida, he could have talked about the Iranian nuclear 
program, he could have talked about China, he could have talked about 
North Korea. But what did he say? The greatest threat to America's 
national security is our national debt. That speaks volumes about what 
we need to be focused on and what we as public officials here in the 
Senate need to devote our energies to.
  So when we think about that, there are a couple of things that, 
obviously, we can do. I have advocated, as have others, that we go back 
to the 2008 spending levels because in the last 2 years, we have seen 
spending on the non-national security discretionary part of the budget 
increase by 21 percent, at a time when inflation in the overall economy 
is 2 percent. So the government has grown at 10 times the rate of 
inflation in the last 2 years.
  When the President talks about freezing spending this year, he is, in 
my view, dealing with an issue that really--the only analogy I can 
use--is like closing the barn door after the horse has already gotten 
out. We have a major problem. We had a dramatic runup in spending in 
the last 2 years, and freezing it now will enshrine and lock in to the 
baseline that massive increase in spending.
  If we go back to the 2008 levels, it will be painful, but we don't 
have the luxury of not dealing with this now. It is going to be 
painful, but it is going to be necessary if we are serious about 
providing a better future for our children and grandchildren. The 
alternative is that we continue to run up these trillion-dollar, $1.5 
trillion deficits year over year over year, adding significantly more 
to that debt and putting ourselves on a trajectory when I think our 
economy is in great peril in the future.
  That is one aspect of it. We talk about the non-national security 
discretionary part of the budget. Of course, the national security part 
of the budget is already being scrutinized and scrubbed. The Secretary 
of Defense, Robert Gates, has made it clear that they are going to try 
to find savings and efficiencies in there to the tune--in fact, I think 
they have already determined they can save somewhere on the order of 
$150 to $170 billion in the defense budget over the next 5 years. But 
then you have this other part of the budget, the entitlement programs--
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--which, of course, Medicare and 
Medicaid are driven by health care costs, and until we figure out what 
we are going to do on health care to rein that in, to get that cost 
under control, it is going to be complicated to try to fix. But that 
being said, I think that is

[[Page 851]]

what argues for actually putting remedies in place that will put 
downward pressure on health care costs, on utilization, so we can bring 
health care costs back under control.
  There are a number of good ideas out there about how to do that. The 
debt commission made some recommendations, although most in the area of 
Medicare and Medicaid were largely cosmetic because they couldn't come 
to an agreement about how to fix health care. Social Security, on the 
other hand, is available. It can be fixed. I think the debt commission 
made a series of recommendations that I hope the President and his team 
will take seriously and come to the Congress. I think Republicans here 
in Congress are willing to work with him because that is something we 
can put on a sustainable path. We ought to do it, and we ought to do it 
now because the longer we wait, the worse the problem becomes.
  So you have the entitlement issues, you have the non-national 
security discretionary spending--things that can be done, that this 
President, if he is willing to put his rhetoric into action and take 
leadership, can actually put up as a record of accomplishment for the 
American people. The alternative is that we continue to add to the 
$14.3 trillion debt.
  I am not going to sit here and say for a moment that we are not all 
responsible for this. Obviously, there were previous administrations 
and previous Congresses. We have gotten where we are today because we 
did not make the hard choices when he should have, and now the choices 
become much harder.
  I would also say that in the last 2 years, that debt has grown by 
over $3 trillion, largely because of a trillion-dollar stimulus bill 
that we borrowed from our children and grandchildren, which didn't do 
anything to create jobs but did add $1 trillion to the debt, and the 
health care bill, which, again, many of the costs of that we are going 
to see into the future, but it has a profound impact on the fiscal 
picture the country is going to be considering.
  What does it mean to finance a $14.3 trillion debt? Well, it means 
this: We spend so much on interest that next year the amount we spend 
on interest will equal the amount we spend on national security. Think 
about that. The entire security budget to defend this country, that 
amount of money will be equalled by the amount we spend on interest to 
finance the debt, and that continues to explode in the years ahead. If 
for some reason we were to have a runup in interest rates, if something 
happened in the economy, which, with inflation starting to take off a 
little bit, generally interest rates would follow that--and at some 
point in the not too distant future, we could see interest rates tick 
up. Well, we have been able to manage our debt by the way we financed 
it and the short-term borrowing. If you saw interest rates reset and go 
up, it would have an even more profound impact on the amount we pay to 
finance that debt and the amount we make in interest payments.
  Every child in America today under the age of 18 owes $114,000 
because of that debt, and 6 years from now it will be $196,000. What 
are we doing to future generations when we saddle them with this 
enormous debt and put them in a position where they are going to be 
faced with a lower standard of living and a lower quality of life than 
what we have experienced simply because we did not have the courage to 
make the hard decisions that were necessary to get this situation under 
control.
  So I would suggest to my colleagues and to the President after his 
speech last night that this is not about talk. It is not about 
rhetoric. It is about action. It is about what the American people 
asked us to come here and do. I think there were three messages coming 
out of the election last fall: The American people want us focused on 
jobs and the economy, they want us focused on spending, and they want 
us focused on debt.
  We are going to have an opportunity in the next few months, when the 
continuing resolution expires and we look at the issue of funding the 
government into the future, to deal with the issue of spending When we 
get to the debt limit vote that will come up sometime this spring, we 
will have an opportunity to talk about the debt. But it ought to 
generate and spark a serious effort here in the Congress, not a 
cosmetic one, not a superficial one, not one where we provide 
lipservice but where we are serious about reining in spending--not just 
non-national security spending but also looking at the long-term issues 
that are going to affect this country's balance sheet well into the 
future, and those are our entitlement programs. It is going to be tough 
stuff. It is not easy to do this.
  I can't help but think that if we had made some of these hard 
decisions a few years ago, we wouldn't be in the situation we are 
today. I came here as a freshman Congressman back in 1997. One of the 
first votes we had--big votes, I should say, on the floor of the House 
of Representatives at the time--was a vote on a balanced budget 
amendment, something that I think 38 States have. Our State of South 
Dakota has a balanced budget amendment, which means our legislature and 
Governor can't go home until they balance the budget. That vote passed. 
It takes two-thirds majorities in both the House and the Senate and 38 
States to ratify to get a constitutional amendment approved. We got a 
big, larger than two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives at 
that time. It came to the Senate, and it failed by one vote. Now, 67 
votes here is the magic number to get the two-thirds threshold. It got 
66 votes in the Senate 14 years ago.
  I can't help but think how much better out financial picture would be 
today had we taken that step back in 1997 and put a balanced budget 
amendment--enshrined that into our Constitution and imposed a 
discipline on the Congress that hasn't existed. Clearly, for 
politicians here in Washington, it is too easy, when it comes down to 
making hard choices, to take the easy way, to hand the bill to our 
children and grandchildren. It is time to stop. We cannot afford this 
any longer. We are at $14.3 trillion and adding $1 trillion every 
single year.
  So this is going to require tough decisions, hard decisions. But I 
believe this is a great country with great people. We have met big 
challenges before. I think the American people are ready to step 
forward and deal with this challenge. I think they are looking for 
political leadership to do that, to join them in that quest. As I said 
before, Presidential leadership is critical. It is going to take 
leadership here in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
  We cannot afford to kick the can down the road any farther, to punt 
the ball to the next generation. It is not fair to them. For 
generations in this country, we have had a sort of guiding principle; 
that is, one generation sacrifices so the next generation can have a 
better life. We may be the first generation that turns that ethic on 
its ear and asks the next generation to sacrifice because we have not 
been willing to live within our means.
  So I hope we can muster the courage that is necessary, and I am going 
to do everything I can to continue to shine a light on this issue when 
we get into these budget debates. I, frankly, have a series of budget 
reforms. I think that, absent a constitutional amendment, we ought to 
be putting some statutory reforms in place that would force downward 
pressure on spending.
  I have a bill that calls for a 2-year or biennial budget where we 
budget in one year, in the odd-numbered year, and in the even-numbered 
year we do more oversight. So when people here are running for 
reelection, instead of worrying about how to spend more money to curry 
favor with a particular constituency, we will be doing oversight and 
looking at how we can save money for the next generation. So I would 
like to get a debate on that. I think we ought to make the budget 
resolution we pass here binding and give it the teeth and the force of 
law which it does not have today. I think there are a series of 
prescriptions that would be worthwhile for us to not only entertain but 
hopefully implement to really take seriously the challenge that is 
before us.
  I thank the chair for the time, and I look forward to engaging in a 
debate about spending and about debt and how

[[Page 852]]

to better create jobs in this economy for the American people, which is 
what I think they want us focused on. I hope it will be not just 
rhetoric but action that follows.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, how much time remains in morning 
business on the minority side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 6 minutes 47 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to reserve that time. I do not 
believe there is another Republican Senator on the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to begin the Democratic side of 
the morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________