The Debt Ceiling

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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:

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.

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source