[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Page 1271]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           STATE OF THE UNION

  Mr. McCONNELL. I would like to say a word about last night's State of 
the Union. To me, at least, the occasion cried out for bold and 
courageous leadership from a reelected President who has run his last 
campaign. It called for a President who was willing to stare down 
America's challenges, reject the easy choices, and step outside his 
political comfort zone to unite a deeply divided public behind a common 
goal.
  Sadly, history will record no such moment. An opportunity to bring 
together the country instead became another retread of lip service and 
liberalism.
  For a Democratic President entering his second term, it was simply 
unequal to the moment. Following 4 years of this President's 
unwillingness to challenge liberal dogma, we have more of the same. The 
President spoke about energy infrastructure but didn't even mention the 
Keystone Pipeline. He chose the Nation's biggest stage to promote 
something that is inefficient and costly, such as solar panels, instead 
of something that is proven, reliable, and domestically produced, such 
as coal.
  He advocated tax reform but mostly as a way to increase the size of 
government, not as a way to increase our competitiveness. He spoke of 
workers' minimum wages instead of their maximum potential.
  In short, with the exception of his impressive delivery and trademark 
style, last night's speech was pedestrian, liberal boilerplate that any 
Democratic lawmaker could have given at any time in recent memory. Gun 
control, cap and trade, tax increases, and spending programs are 
exactly what we have come to expect from a liberal President who seems 
perfectly content to preside over a divided country and a stagnant 
economy.
  Of course, everyone recognizes the President is a very good 
campaigner. We all acknowledge his skill in that area. He will be doing 
more of that today down in North Carolina.
  A State of the Union Address should be about something bigger. 
Instead of dividing Americans, it should unite them. Instead of 
inflaming passions, it should show what is possible when the two 
parties actually work together.
  I am glad he mentioned things such as expanding trade opportunities 
with Asia and Europe. That is an area where we can cooperate, and I 
look forward to working with colleagues from both parties to do just 
that.
  Overall, I am disappointed. I am especially disappointed he chose not 
to seriously address the transcendent issue of our time, which is 
finding a way to control our spiraling debt before it controls us. If 
we don't do that, we will not be able to leave our children the kind of 
country our parents left us; that is, a goal all of us should share.
  Take the Obama sequester as just one example. The President had a 
chance last night to offer a thoughtful alternative to his sequester, 
one that could reduce spending in a smarter way. That is what 
Republicans have been calling for all along, and it is the kind of 
thing the House has already voted to do not once but twice. We want to 
work with him to actually make that happen.
  Instead we just heard gimmicks and tax hikes, just one more plan from 
the President that is designed to fail so he can blame others when it 
does fail. It is too bad for the country. It truly is.
  The American people, in their collective judgment, decided to send 
divided government to Washington. I am sure the President wishes that 
weren't so, but it is the reality, and Americans look to him to use 
forums such as the State of the Union to bring people together and get 
things done with the government we have, not the one the President 
wishes he had. That is what Ronald Reagan did, and he accomplished 
great things. President Clinton was able to get quite a bit done with 
divided government too.
  Why is it this President can't seem to demonstrate the same kind of 
leadership? He says he wants balance--balance. His approach so far has 
been anything but. Just as ``investment'' has become a Washington code 
word for more spending, ``balance'' has now become a code word for my 
way or the highway.
  Remember, the President already received the additional revenue he 
wanted in January. He didn't agree to a single cut in spending then, 
just revenue. Obviously, the balanced thing to do now would be to look 
at cuts. Last night the President didn't propose any real cuts; he just 
demanded more and more taxes. With a $16 trillion debt, he actually 
called for more spending too, although he didn't say how he would pay 
for it or even how much it would cost. Pretend, for a moment, the 
Republicans agreed to go along with all those taxes and all that 
spending. What do you think he would demand the next time and the time 
after that? Of course, more taxes and more spending. And we all know 
Washington uses tax increases to fund even more spending on things such 
as robosquirrels and Solyndra, not to reduce the deficit. That is what 
history shows us. It is how we got in this mess in the first place.
  So we are not going to play the Washington game. The stakes for 
American families are too high to keep taking the easy way out, with 
more taxes and more wasteful spending. Republicans believe taking on 
this massive burden of debt should be more important in this town than 
winning the next election. That is why we need commonsense reforms, 
such as a balanced budget amendment. All Republicans support it, and 
Democrats should too. But we won't get anywhere as a nation if the 
President refuses to lead. We just can't. So the question is, Will he 
lead or will he continue this endless campaign?
  I want to end on a positive note, so I would like to point out that 
there were areas of agreement last night, and I particularly 
appreciated the President's reference to Burma. And Senator Rubio did a 
great job with the Republican address. I hope the President will 
actually listen to some of the things Senator Rubio said, and I hope he 
will come back to Congress with some different ideas. We can get 
important things done in his second term, and if he is ready to come to 
the center, to the political center, we will.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________