Government Shutdown

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the American credit card is maxed out. We continue to add about $1 trillion or $1.5 trillion to that credit card every single year to where it is now at $14 trillion. The amazing thing is, right now it is about noon, and between now and midnight tonight when this continuing resolution expires, if nothing is done the government would shut down. We will add more than $2 billion to that debt. In a 12-hour time period between noon and midnight tonight, we will add another more than $2 billion to that $14 trillion debt that is growing by the hour.

We have a crisis in this country. We have had experts tell us, such as the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, that there is a 50-percent probability that we will see a debt crisis in the next 2 to 3 years.

Interestingly enough, there was a story in the Wall Street Journal this morning that says:

Europe's central bank became the first monetary authority in a major developed economy to raise interest rates since the global financial crisis struck, a sign that an era of cheap credit is coming to a close.

It goes on to say the ECB increased its benchmark by a quarter point to 1.25 percent.

Now, if we started to see an upward tick in interest rates, it would have a profound impact on the deficit and on the debt because the experts also tell us--the Congressional Budget Office and others--that for every 1 percentage point increase in interest rates, it would cost about $140 billion every single year.

To put that into perspective, the interest on the debt in the year 2015--if we stay on our current trajectory, will exceed the amount we spend for defense. So we will be spending more on interest on the debt than we actually spend defending this country in 2015. That is assuming we did not see any kind of an increase in interest rates. If we were to see, as I said earlier, as much as a 1-percent increase in interest rates, that adds $140 billion every single year in interest costs to finance the debt. This is a serious situation which requires serious action.

We have in front of us a continuing resolution to fund the government because we did not get the work done last year. The Democratic majorities in the last year did not pass a budget, did not pass a single appropriations bill. So we are doing the unfinished work of last year. We are in the now sixth continuing resolution which, as I said, expires tonight at midnight. If nothing is done, the government would shut down, but there is an alternative. Of course, the best alternative would be to pass legislation that passed the House of Representatives earlier this year--it was voted on in the Senate and was defeated--that cut $61 billion from discretionary spending and would take us back to 2008 levels.

Just to remind my colleagues, in the last 2 years discretionary spending has increased 24 percent. That is if we do not include stimulus money. If we add stimulus money, it was 84 percent. We have seen discretionary spending increase in the last 2 years by 24 percent at a time when inflation in this country was 2 percent. So we were spending at a rate that was literally more than 10 times the rate of inflation.

I do not think the American people would think it is unreasonable--when we are running $1.5 trillion deficits every year, when we have a $14 trillion debt--that we ought to be able to go back to 2008 spending levels. That is what the House bill did that failed in the Senate. So that triggered a negotiation, which is ongoing.

My point very simply is, there is a solution in front of us now that would prevent, at midnight tonight, the government from shutting down, and it would also fund our troops through the end of this fiscal year, which ends on September 30. So all we have to do in the Senate is--the majority leader, all he has to do is call up that House-passed bill, we move that, and it would fund the government for another week until the negotiators can come to a final conclusion on a longer term funding resolution that would take us through to the end of the fiscal year.

There is a very simple answer to all this. So there is a big debate about that particular short-term funding resolution. They say, well, maybe it cuts too deeply. All the cuts that are in that short-term funding resolution are cuts that have been agreed upon largely by both sides, by both Democrats and Republicans, and it is to the tune of about $12 billion, which is significantly less than the number both sides have agreed we ought to cut from the budget this year.

As I said, it also would fund the military. It is important we fund our troops, that we not put our military at risk of not having the funding that is necessary for them to conduct their very important duties when we are trying to fight two wars, and perhaps three. So it would fund the military through the end of this fiscal year.

So why will it not be picked up and passed by the majority leader in the Senate? Well, according to our colleagues on the other side, it is because of these ideological riders, this rigid partisanship, this insisting upon things that just absolutely do not have any support in the Congress.

Well, I want to point out something. In 2009 the other side was singing a very different tune because at that time they were passing a big spending bill, and at that time President Obama and then-Speaker Pelosi loaded such riders onto a government funding bill similar to the one now being negotiated. A senior Democratic aide is saying: Well, they are not comparable. Well, many of the same provisions--in fact, one of them was an abortion provision that was included in that particular spending bill. It goes on to say--and this is quoting a Democratic aide later on:

There is a difference between including riders on a bill when they are supported by a majority of the Senate and just need a vehicle and including riders on a bill because a minority is trying to ram through something that would not have support on its own.

Well, just to point out, the rider that was added by the House Republicans on the short-term spending bill is a ban on taxpayer funding of abortions in Washington, DC. It would affect one city in the country. Interestingly enough, it is a position that has been supported repeatedly by the leadership on the other side. The majority leader, Senator Reid, has voted for this very ban 10 times since 1995. The majority whip, Senator Durbin, has voted for this very ban 9 times since 1995. Believe it or not, the President of the United States, when he was a member of the Senate, voted for that ban twice, and he, as President, signed legislation that includes that ban.

So to suggest this is something that lacks majority support just does not pass the smell test. You cannot make an argument that it is about ideological riders that do not have majority support when you have people on both sides, by large majorities, voting for these particular riders. I think you cannot argue that this is an ideological battle because these are things that have been passed before right here in the Senate.

I think most of these--a lot of legislative things, a lot of things that get funded in government are an expression of someone's ideology. Now, there are some of us who happen to believe the taxpayers in this country should not be supporting abortion; that taxpayer funds should not be going to support abortions.

The broader debate about funding for Planned Parenthood is not just ideological, it is a funding issue because they have received somewhere on the order of over $300 million a year in taxpayer funds. So when you are looking at ways to trim government, you are looking at every area of the government. You are by definition making decisions that in some cases may be based on someone's ideology. The fact is, you cannot argue with a straight face on the floor of the Senate that this short-term funding resolution ought to be held up over a couple of riders that have broad support by Members on both sides and have countless previous votes in support of those.

So I would suggest to my colleagues in the Senate that a shutdown at midnight tonight can be avoided very simply. All it requires is for the majority leader to pick up the bill that passed the House of Representatives yesterday; a bill that, as I said, funds the government for another week until our negotiators can come to that final conclusion, that funds the military through the end of the fiscal year, and that includes a couple of provisions that have been supported numerous times by Members on both sides in the Senate.

A shutdown is totally avoidable, but it is completely up to the majority to pick up that legislation and pass it. We cannot afford to wait to deal with out-of-control spending and debt for the reasons I just mentioned. Over 40 cents of every dollar we spend at the Federal level is borrowed. As I said before, we have seen discretionary spending increase by 24 percent over the past 2 years. What the House Republicans have proposed in terms of spending reductions, I think by any definition--I think the American people would find it to be very reasonable. It represents literally less than 2 percent of total Federal spending.

At a time when most Americans are tightening their belts, most small businesses are tightening their belts, families are having to make hard budget decisions, at least in Washington we ought to be making decisions in the best interest of getting this country back on track so we do not spend money we do not have and we are living within our means and not saddling future generations with an enormous debt, which is not fair to them and which, by the way, also has a profound impact on the economy.

Everybody makes the argument up here that somehow if we reduce Federal spending it is going to hurt the economy. Well, I would argue the opposite. If we do not get Federal spending under control, it is going to hurt the economy because you are going to see these kinds of impacts. You are going to see interest rates start going up. You are going to see inflation start going up. You are going to have people not making decisions about hiring out there in our economy because they do not believe Washington, DC, has gotten the message about getting spending and debt under control.

So I would argue to my colleagues that we have a solution, a very simple solution in front of us. It certainly does not necessitate at midnight tonight the government shutting down. I do not think that is in anybody's best interests. I do not know of anyone on this side of the aisle who wants to see that happen. All we are saying is, it is high time this government started to live within its means, started to stop spending money it does not have, started putting us on a fiscal path that will ensure that this country is around for future generations of Americans, and that we do not have young people in the future carrying around an $88,000 debt, which is what their debt will be in a few short years if we do not take steps to get Federal spending and Federal debt under control.

So I urge my colleagues--the Senator from New York got up and said: Please, Republicans, don't shut the government down. I would say to my colleagues on the other side: It is very simple. If the majority leader just picks up the House-passed bill, passes it, this crisis is averted. The negotiators can continue their discussions on a longer term solution which it sounds like they are very close to coming to a conclusion on. That is all it would require. It is a very simple solution.

I hope my colleagues will do it, and we can make sure the government continues to function, but that we start to get spending and debt under control.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source