John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, when the health care reform bill passed, the Speaker of the House famously said: We have to pass this bill so we can figure out what is in it. Well, what more and more Americans are finding when they look at what is in it are things they do not like. This is becoming increasingly less popular over time, and one of the most egregious provisions in this bill is this 1099 provision. The Senator from Iowa is worried about making sure more people have access to health care. We all are. Well, the best way for most Americans to get access to health care, because most Americans still get their health care coverage through their employers, the best way to get health care coverage is to get a job. This provision kills jobs. This is directly targeted at small businesses, the economic engine, the job creators in America today. So what the Senator from Nebraska is trying to do is to correct this by repealing this onerous compliance burden that we are placing on the small businesses of this country. It is not the tax delinquents who get hurt by this, it is the hard-working small businesses. It is the charities. It is the government agencies who have to deal with this burdensome paperwork. That, I think, is why we have so many organizations. We have agricultural organizations such as the American Farm Bureau, the Corn Growers, the Soybean Growers, the Cattlemen, and go right down the list. We have small business organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Home Builders, the International Food Service Distributors, the Restaurant Association, and the Associated General Contractors that support repeal because it would hurt both their employees and their bottom line. We even have government organizations such as the National Association of Towns and Townships, which represents local governments. They support repeal because it would force cities and communities to keep track of every purchase they make whether it be cement, snowplows, or pencils. This is a ridiculous requirement that we are imposing, in many cases, on small businesses, on small charities, on small organizations, and local governments. I can tell you from personal experience, in my State this is something they cannot comply with and cannot deal with. So if we are worried about job creation in this country, if we are worried about economic growth, this is absolutely the wrong way to go about promoting it. What the Johanns amendment does is repeal this provision. It does it in a fiscally responsible way. It is offset, it is paid for, and it makes sense. I hope my colleagues will vote for this commonsense amendment because whether this was an intended consequence or an unintended consequence, this is absolutely disastrous for small businesses across this country, and it is essential that we get this part of the health care reform bill repealed. There are many others I think we are probably going to be talking about before this is all said and done because, as I said, the more people read the fine print in this legislation, the more they come to the realization of how bad this is for small businesses and for job creation in this country. So I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Johanns amendment and to repeal this onerous provision.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Would the Senator from Nevada yield for a question on that?

Mr. THUNE. I say to my colleague from Nevada, it comes down to their horrible record on gun rights. It made it impossible for these two organizations to conclude that they would be impartial constitutional judges on this issue even though they tried to convince Senators otherwise during their confirmation hearings. These groups had their concerns about Justice Sotomayor validated on June 30, 2010, when she ruled again that the second amendment is not a fundamental right. Justice Sotomayor assured Senators during her hearing that she believed the second amendment guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms. But then in her first ruling on the second amendment as a Supreme Court Justice, she joined the minority opinion in McDonald v. Chicago and failed to protect this individual right, as confirmed by the majority of the Court, for citizens living in the 50 States. Specifically, at Justice Sotomayor's hearing, she said that she ``understood the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller'' and ``knew how important the right to bear arms is to many Americans,'' and that she did not consider the right ``unfundamental.'' This is in stark contrast to the opinion she signed onto in McDonald that I said--this is a quote from the McDonald opinion: I can find nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as fundamental, insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes. I know that many in this body, especially those who supported her confirmation, were surprised by what is seemingly a 180-degree turn. While I had hoped we could trust her word, I was concerned that her record did not fit her statements at the hearing. I had concerns that her true feelings were much more hostile toward the second amendment right than what she was letting on. Specifically, I had concerns with two different cases she decided as a circuit court judge, including one after the Supreme Court already recognized the second amendment was an individual right, where she held in that case that the second amendment was ``clearly not a fundamental right'' and did not apply to the States. There were some Senators at the time who were not as concerned by this record as I was and some of the others of us in the Chamber were and went so far as to say--this is a quote from one of our colleagues: I do not see how any fair observer could regard her testimony as hostile to the second amendment personal right to bear arms, a right she has embraced and recognized. That is something said by one of our colleagues in the Senate during the Sotomayor confirmation. While what Justice Sotomayor said during the hearing certainly gave the impression that she believed in the individual right to keep and bear arms, her prehearing record demonstrated her true beliefs. I am here today to urge those Members who proclaim to strongly support the second amendment not to be fooled a second time. Ms. Kagan was asked about the second amendment on a number of occasions at her hearing, and each time her response was merely a mimic of Justice Sotomayor's statements on the second amendment at her hearing. Ms. Kagan would go no further than to acknowledge that the important Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald are ``precedent'' and ``settled law entitled to all the weight the precedent usually gets.'' I believe there is no question that Ms. Kagan will follow in the footsteps of Justice Sotomayor and revert to the beliefs demonstrated by her anti-second amendment record rather than her posturing during her confirmation hearing. That is the reason the NRA and other groups that treasure the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, such as Gun Owners of America, oppose her nomination, just as they did Justice Sotomayor's. The only question that remains for us in the Senate is whether pro- second amendment Senators who voted for Justice Sotomayor have learned their lesson and will vote against the Kagan nomination. I say to my colleagues from Nevada and Alabama, as the old saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. For the sake of gun owners across the country, I hope they will not be fooled again. I say to my colleagues from Nevada and Alabama, with all the unanswered questions that remain after the Heller and McDonald cases, are there not lots of reasons why those grassroots people across this country--those gun owners, those people who care profoundly about the right to keep and bear arms--ought to be concerned? For example, what is a sensitive place? Who needs to register? There are going to be registration laws that are put in place. How is the issue of microstamping and the mandates and requirements that might be associated with that going to impact this fundamental second amendment right?

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Nevada, it is troubling--very troubling, and maybe even telling--that the President would ask us to confirm an individual who admittedly has not reviewed the justification for the second amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I close by saying as well, I think in all cases, you have to judge people not by what they say but by what they do. Clearly, the record would suggest, as it did with Justice Sotomayor, a certain hostility toward the second amendment right. Obviously, statements at the Judiciary Committee hearings suggesting an openness to this or acknowledging settled law or precedents or all those sorts of things were meaningless in regard to the Chicago case with regard to Justice Sotomayor. If we look at the long history of Ms. Kagan with regard to this issue, I think we can conclude where she is going to end up. It is a critical issue because these are 5-to-4 decisions. These are very narrow decisions that strike at the very heart of a fundamental constitutional right that people in this country deserve to have their leaders, both elected leaders and people on the Court, protect. I am very concerned about where that is headed with this nominee. I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the NRA wrote in that case: . . . Judge Sotomayor's judicial record and testimony during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I continue by saying that after reviewing Ms. Kagan's record of testimony at the confirmation hearing, Gun Owners of America concluded: . . . the available evidence portrays her as a forceful advocate of restrictive gun laws and as a person driven by political considerations rather than the rule of law. The NRA went on to write: . . . Ms. Kagan's record on the Second Amendment gives us no confidence that if confirmed to the Court, she will faithfully defend the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding Americans. For these reasons, the National Rifle Association has no choice but to oppose the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the importance of this issue, this vote will be considered in the NRA's future candidate evaluations. Yes, the answer to the question of the Senator from Alabama is both the NRA and Gun Owners of America have opposed not only this nomination but also Justice Sotomayor's nomination. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the NRA's letter in opposition to the Sotomayor nomination.

Mr. THUNE. They have. I simply say to my colleague from Alabama, in his remarks he noted the pattern we are starting to see that exists with regard to--the Senator from Alabama mentioned the Attorney General of this administration and their nominees to the Supreme Court. What that has done is galvanized those at the grassroots level who are very concerned about what they see happening and how it might threaten and put in danger the second amendment right that many of them have enjoyed and believe is something that ought to be protected in the future--it ought to be protected by the Supreme Court, it ought to be protected by the Congress, it ought to be protected by the President of the United States. We see some of these grassroots people who are concerned about this issue give voice to their concerns through organizations such as the NRA, for example, and Gun Owners of America. I wish to point out, if I may, that both of these organizations have written letters in opposition to Ms. Kagan's nomination. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters.

Mr. THUNE. If I might ask the Senator from Alabama this--because he is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. I know he has dealt with numerous nominees to the Supreme Court in the past, as well as probably hundreds of other judicial nominees. Does the Senator recall how often those nominees had a record on second amendment rights?

Mr. THUNE. I heard my colleague say--and I would be interested in having him confirm--didn't Ms. Kagan teach constitutional law and would it not have been appropriate at that time for her to have looked at the Founding Fathers' intent on the second amendment?

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Danielle Hanson, an intern in my Rapid City, SD office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Danielle is a graduate of St. Thomas More High School in Rapid City, SD. Currently, she is attending Benedictine College in Kansas, where she is majoring in secondary education. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Danielle for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Travis Nordgaard, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Travis is a graduate of Canby High School in Canby, SD. Currently, he is attending Carleton College, where he is majoring in political science and economics. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Travis for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Jordan Veurink, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Jordan is a graduate of the University of Sioux Falls in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, he is attending Texas Wesleyan University School of Law. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jordan for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Edmund Curry, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Edmund is a graduate of the University of Maryland, where he majored in political science and government. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Edmund for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Ryun Haugaard, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Ryun is a graduate of Milbank High School in Milbank, SD. After high school, he enlisted in the Army as an ordnance specialist and was deployed to Iraq with the 592nd Ordnance Company, 96th Regional Readiness Command. Currently he is attending the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he is majoring in law. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Ryun for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Newell, SD. Founded in 1910, the town of Newell will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year. Located in Butte County, Newell possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. Throughout its 100 year history, Newell has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The community of Newell has much to be proud of and I am confident that Newell's success will continue well into the future. Newell will commemorate the 100th anniversary of its founding with celebrations held on September 4 through September 6. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Newell on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Peter Nesbitt, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Peter is a graduate of Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls, SD. He served in the U.S. Army in Seoul, South Korea for 6 years. Currently, he is attending Georgetown University, where he is majoring in international politics. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Peter for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Blake Neff, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Blake is a graduate of Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, he is attending Dartmouth College, where he is majoring in history. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Blake for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Faith, SD. Founded in 1910, Faith will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year. Located in Meade County, Faith possesses the strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. The president of the Milwaukee Railroad named the city at the proposed end of the line after his daughter Faith. Faith has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The community of Faith has much to be proud of and I am confident that Faith's success will continue well into the future. Faith will commemorate the centennial anniversary of its founding with celebrations held from August 10 through August 15, featuring events such as a wagon train, parade, rodeo, and an all-school reunion. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Faith on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Aimee Cornelius, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Aimee is a graduate of Aberdeen Central High School in Aberdeen, SD. Currently, she is attending North Central University, where she is majoring in journalism. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Aimee for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Gann Valley, SD. Founded in 1885, the town of Gann Valley will celebrate its 125th anniversary this year. Located in Buffalo County, Gann Valley is a small yet steadfast community that embodies the spirit of South Dakota. Gann Valley's proximity to the Missouri River has made this town a great location for outdoor adventures, such as fishing, camping, and boating. Gann Valley has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. Gann Valley will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its founding with a celebration held from July 30 through August 1, featuring events such as a wagon train, parade, buffalo chip throwing, rooster roping, live minnow races, and a street dance. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Gann Valley on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Robert Berry, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Robert is a graduate of Aberdeen Central High School in Aberdeen, SD. Currently, he is attending the University of Minnesota, where he is majoring in political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Robert for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we have been bombarded with some pretty big numbers lately. Our total national debt recently topped $13 trillion. In 5 years, it is expected to pass $20 trillion. This fiscal year alone, the Federal Government plans to run a deficit of $1.4 trillion. In other words, we are borrowing 41 cents out of every $1 we spend. The numbers are mind blowing. We cannot even wrap our heads around the immensity of these numbers that run into the trillions. But they should be a very big red flag indicating that something--something--has gone very wrong here in Washington. The American people are struggling with high unemployment and a difficult economy, trying to make ends meet. The American Government-- their government--ought to be doing what it can to balance its own budget, not spending like drunken sailors in a way that will put the future of many American families at risk. I hear it in my State. I know most of my colleagues do. I hear it as I drive around the country. There is a palpable fear that this enormous burden of debt is going to crush us. The Federal budget for 2010 is already 24 percent higher than it was in 2008. How many families are able to increase their spending by 24 percent over a 2-year period? Congress has to realize what the American people already know: Our current rate of spending is unsustainable. There is an old saying that if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see everything as a nail. Well, this administration and the Democratic leadership of Congress seem to think the only tool they have is a checkbook and every problem can be solved with more money. But all of this reckless spending is not solving the problems it was meant to solve. If you recall, the trillion dollar stimulus was supposed to create jobs and get the economy growing again. Unfortunately, it has not worked that way. Look at the latest jobs report for last month. We actually lost 125,000 total jobs across the country. Where I come from, that is known as heading in the wrong direction. Look as the massive health care law passed earlier this year. When the other side was jamming this bill through the Senate, they said, even though it would cost $2.5 trillion, it would actually bring down--down--our spending on health care and lower the deficit over time. In the past few weeks, however, we have gotten new estimates that the law will cost billions more than was thought a few months ago. On top of that, health care spending is expected to rise even faster as a result of the law than if we had done nothing at all. Time after time after time that is what we have seen: more spending, more debt, and a bill we will hand to our children--all because we cannot live within our means and we refuse to make the tough choices we were elected to make. The irresponsible spending and borrowing that is making our mountain of debt bigger every day has to stop. Today, I am introducing a bill entitled the Deficit Reduction and Budget Reform Act that will take the first steps toward reining in our spending. It is high time we show the American taxpayers we are responsible stewards not just of their tax dollars but of the future of this country. The goal here is to reform the budget process and to reduce our structural deficits so we will live within our means. My proposal is a three-legged stool that aims to support our country and economy while reducing the burden our rapidly expanding government places on American families and businesses. The first proposal is to create a new standing joint committee of Congress for budget deficit reduction. The committee would be required to put forward a plan to cut the deficit by 10 percent every budget cycle, and to do it without raising taxes. This would be Members of Congress--both parties--taking responsibility and not punting the job to outsiders. This bill would then receive expedited consideration in both Chambers of Congress. We have 26 committees and subcommittees in Congress that are dedicated to spending tax dollars. We should have at least one dedicated to saving tax dollars. Second, to make sure those changes have a better chance of success in practice, I am proposing additional reforms to the budget process. Crucially, we would reform pay-go rules to prevent the double counting of new revenues or reduced spending in trust funds for the purpose of offsetting other expenditures. When pay-go rules were set up earlier this year, they allowed for these kinds of gimmicks that have been used over and over to subvert the budget responsibility the rules were meant to impose. More than $600 billion in trust fund offsets was used to pass the health care reform bill, and an attempt was made to increase the per- barrel tax for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to offset other unrelated measures. By preventing these changes from being used as an offset under pay-go rules, this provision would end the practice of double counting these spending reductions and revenue increases. Then we would add teeth to the budget by making it a binding joint resolution signed into law by the President. This would force the administration and Congress to work more closely together, and Congress would have less flexibility to violate the nonbinding resolutions we currently use. My legislation would also establish a biennial budget timeline to give Congress more time for oversight and to determine whether our spending is doing what it is supposed to do. I will simply point out that it seems to me the way we do the budget process currently is broken. In the last 34 years, I think there have been 4 times when all of the appropriations bills have been passed by the Congress on time, according to schedule. If you look at the number of budgets that have been passed here in the past few years, there have been a lot of years when we have not passed budgets at all. It seems to me it would make sense--in an even-numbered year, when there is an election going to be held--that we ought to do oversight, that we ought to be looking at ways to save taxpayer money rather than spend taxpayer money. Then we could do the budget in the odd-numbered years, after an election, so we have an opportunity to do the appropriations bills and go through the budget process in the odd- numbered year, so when the even-numbered year comes around again we are not consumed with trying to spend money to attract some constituency to vote for us in an election year, but, rather, we are focused on oversight and on ways we could actually save the taxpayers money as opposed to spending it. So a biennial budget process, budget timeline, is something this bill would also do. When Congress inevitably resorts to pork-barrel politics that inflates our budgets, we need a legislative line-item veto to allow the President to cut them out and to send a more responsible budget back to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Governors of most States, including my State of South Dakota, have some kind of a line- item veto. The President ought to have that power as well. Third, on top of these vital systemic changes, we need to take control of the government's outrageous spending. My bill would impose a 10-year spending freeze to cap the Federal Government's discretionary spending at the level it was in fiscal year 2008, adjusted for inflation. I said earlier that between 2008 and 2010, Federal spending had increased 24 percent, at a time when inflation in this country was about 3.5 percent. If we take that baseline back to that 2008 level and index it for inflation every year for the next 10 years, we can save the taxpayers literally hundreds of billions of dollars. Beyond that freeze, we should end the failed stimulus program and reclaim any money remaining unspent and unobligated and apply it to the Federal debt. Those are not the only possible answers, and many are not new. Many of these are ideas my Republican colleagues and I have proposed and that we fought for in the past. We will keep fighting for them because they are the kinds of things we need to do to break the back of this budget problem we are fighting. The government's current level of borrowing, this out-of-control spending, and this amount of taxation are too much for our economy and our taxpayers to bear. What may be even more troubling is the point that was made by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen. He said the biggest threat to our national security is our debt, not al-Qaida, not Iran's nuclear program, not Russian spies, but the debt Congress itself has created. It does not have to be this way. My plan is a responsible approach that takes prudent but manageable steps to get our spending under control and to start to draw down our debt. It provides concrete savings of nearly a trillion dollars, and it puts in place a framework to help us save trillions more over time. It is easy to say: I will be responsible tomorrow, but first I want to spend a little more today. Well, there will always be something that seems important to spend tax dollars on, and if we keep taking that same old approach that the other side has been pushing since they took control of Congress in 2007, we will be waiting for fiscal responsibility forever. Tackling our outrageous national debt is not a priority we should put off until the long term, after the debt has gone up even higher and higher and higher than it is today. It needs to be a priority now. I will also note that we cannot afford the old trick where the President calls for spending cuts in theory but then happily signs congressional spending bills that do not save a dime. We have to move beyond the same old political games and the same old phony rhetoric. We need real commitment to making a real difference. There is another old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The President and the Democratic leadership of Congress want to keep doing the same thing over and over: borrowing money, spending too much, and then borrowing even more. But thinking that somehow with all that borrowing and spending we will buy our way out of the hole we are in, that is insanity. In reality, all we are doing is digging ourselves deeper and deeper into debt. I am going to conclude by urging my colleagues to take up this legislation I am introducing and to take that first crucial step to fiscal responsibility. The American people expect us to take our debt seriously, and it is high time we lived up to that expectation.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we have been bombarded with some pretty big numbers lately. Our total national debt recently topped $13 trillion. In 5 years, it is expected to pass $20 trillion. This fiscal year alone, the Federal Government plans to run a deficit of $1.4 trillion. In other words, we are borrowing 41 cents out of every $1 we spend. The numbers are mind blowing. We cannot even wrap our heads around the immensity of these numbers that run into the trillions. But they should be a very big red flag indicating that something--something--has gone very wrong here in Washington. The American people are struggling with high unemployment and a difficult economy, trying to make ends meet. The American Government-- their government--ought to be doing what it can to balance its own budget, not spending like drunken sailors in a way that will put the future of many American families at risk. I hear it in my State. I know most of my colleagues do. I hear it as I drive around the country. There is a palpable fear that this enormous burden of debt is going to crush us. The Federal budget for 2010 is already 24 percent higher than it was in 2008. How many families are able to increase their spending by 24 percent over a 2-year period? Congress has to realize what the American people already know: Our current rate of spending is unsustainable. There is an old saying that if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see everything as a nail. Well, this administration and the Democratic leadership of Congress seem to think the only tool they have is a checkbook and every problem can be solved with more money. But all of this reckless spending is not solving the problems it was meant to solve. If you recall, the trillion dollar stimulus was supposed to create jobs and get the economy growing again. Unfortunately, it has not worked that way. Look at the latest jobs report for last month. We actually lost 125,000 total jobs across the country. Where I come from, that is known as heading in the wrong direction. Look as the massive health care law passed earlier this year. When the other side was jamming this bill through the Senate, they said, even though it would cost $2.5 trillion, it would actually bring down--down--our spending on health care and lower the deficit over time. In the past few weeks, however, we have gotten new estimates that the law will cost billions more than was thought a few months ago. On top of that, health care spending is expected to rise even faster as a result of the law than if we had done nothing at all. Time after time after time that is what we have seen: more spending, more debt, and a bill we will hand to our children--all because we cannot live within our means and we refuse to make the tough choices we were elected to make. The irresponsible spending and borrowing that is making our mountain of debt bigger every day has to stop. Today, I am introducing a bill entitled the Deficit Reduction and Budget Reform Act that will take the first steps toward reining in our spending. It is high time we show the American taxpayers we are responsible stewards not just of their tax dollars but of the future of this country. The goal here is to reform the budget process and to reduce our structural deficits so we will live within our means. My proposal is a three-legged stool that aims to support our country and economy while reducing the burden our rapidly expanding government places on American families and businesses. The first proposal is to create a new standing joint committee of Congress for budget deficit reduction. The committee would be required to put forward a plan to cut the deficit by 10 percent every budget cycle, and to do it without raising taxes. This would be Members of Congress--both parties--taking responsibility and not punting the job to outsiders. This bill would then receive expedited consideration in both Chambers of Congress. We have 26 committees and subcommittees in Congress that are dedicated to spending tax dollars. We should have at least one dedicated to saving tax dollars. Second, to make sure those changes have a better chance of success in practice, I am proposing additional reforms to the budget process. Crucially, we would reform pay-go rules to prevent the double counting of new revenues or reduced spending in trust funds for the purpose of offsetting other expenditures. When pay-go rules were set up earlier this year, they allowed for these kinds of gimmicks that have been used over and over to subvert the budget responsibility the rules were meant to impose. More than $600 billion in trust fund offsets was used to pass the health care reform bill, and an attempt was made to increase the per- barrel tax for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to offset other unrelated measures. By preventing these changes from being used as an offset under pay-go rules, this provision would end the practice of double counting these spending reductions and revenue increases. Then we would add teeth to the budget by making it a binding joint resolution signed into law by the President. This would force the administration and Congress to work more closely together, and Congress would have less flexibility to violate the nonbinding resolutions we currently use. My legislation would also establish a biennial budget timeline to give Congress more time for oversight and to determine whether our spending is doing what it is supposed to do. I will simply point out that it seems to me the way we do the budget process currently is broken. In the last 34 years, I think there have been 4 times when all of the appropriations bills have been passed by the Congress on time, according to schedule. If you look at the number of budgets that have been passed here in the past few years, there have been a lot of years when we have not passed budgets at all. It seems to me it would make sense--in an even-numbered year, when there is an election going to be held--that we ought to do oversight, that we ought to be looking at ways to save taxpayer money rather than spend taxpayer money. Then we could do the budget in the odd-numbered years, after an election, so we have an opportunity to do the appropriations bills and go through the budget process in the odd- numbered year, so when the even-numbered year comes around again we are not consumed with trying to spend money to attract some constituency to vote for us in an election year, but, rather, we are focused on oversight and on ways we could actually save the taxpayers money as opposed to spending it. So a biennial budget process, budget timeline, is something this bill would also do. When Congress inevitably resorts to pork-barrel politics that inflates our budgets, we need a legislative line-item veto to allow the President to cut them out and to send a more responsible budget back to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Governors of most States, including my State of South Dakota, have some kind of a line- item veto. The President ought to have that power as well. Third, on top of these vital systemic changes, we need to take control of the government's outrageous spending. My bill would impose a 10-year spending freeze to cap the Federal Government's discretionary spending at the level it was in fiscal year 2008, adjusted for inflation. I said earlier that between 2008 and 2010, Federal spending had increased 24 percent, at a time when inflation in this country was about 3.5 percent. If we take that baseline back to that 2008 level and index it for inflation every year for the next 10 years, we can save the taxpayers literally hundreds of billions of dollars. Beyond that freeze, we should end the failed stimulus program and reclaim any money remaining unspent and unobligated and apply it to the Federal debt. Those are not the only possible answers, and many are not new. Many of these are ideas my Republican colleagues and I have proposed and that we fought for in the past. We will keep fighting for them because they are the kinds of things we need to do to break the back of this budget problem we are fighting. The government's current level of borrowing, this out-of-control spending, and this amount of taxation are too much for our economy and our taxpayers to bear. What may be even more troubling is the point that was made by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen. He said the biggest threat to our national security is our debt, not al-Qaida, not Iran's nuclear program, not Russian spies, but the debt Congress itself has created. It does not have to be this way. My plan is a responsible approach that takes prudent but manageable steps to get our spending under control and to start to draw down our debt. It provides concrete savings of nearly a trillion dollars, and it puts in place a framework to help us save trillions more over time. It is easy to say: I will be responsible tomorrow, but first I want to spend a little more today. Well, there will always be something that seems important to spend tax dollars on, and if we keep taking that same old approach that the other side has been pushing since they took control of Congress in 2007, we will be waiting for fiscal responsibility forever. Tackling our outrageous national debt is not a priority we should put off until the long term, after the debt has gone up even higher and higher and higher than it is today. It needs to be a priority now. I will also note that we cannot afford the old trick where the President calls for spending cuts in theory but then happily signs congressional spending bills that do not save a dime. We have to move beyond the same old political games and the same old phony rhetoric. We need real commitment to making a real difference. There is another old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The President and the Democratic leadership of Congress want to keep doing the same thing over and over: borrowing money, spending too much, and then borrowing even more. But thinking that somehow with all that borrowing and spending we will buy our way out of the hole we are in, that is insanity. In reality, all we are doing is digging ourselves deeper and deeper into debt. I am going to conclude by urging my colleagues to take up this legislation I am introducing and to take that first crucial step to fiscal responsibility. The American people expect us to take our debt seriously, and it is high time we lived up to that expectation.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.