Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
VOTE:
ARE
THERE ANY SENATORS IN THE
CHAMBER WHO HAVE NOT YET VOTED
OR WISH TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE?
IF NOT, ON THIS VOTE THE YEAS
ARE 96.
THE NAYS ARE 2.
THREE-FIFTHS OF THE SENATORS
DULY CHOSEN AND SWORN HAVING
VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THE
MOTION IS AGREED TO.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM OREGON.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I AND SENATOR MERKLEY AND MANY
OF THE SENATORS SPENT A GREAT
DEAL OF TIME WORKING ON THE
QUESTION OF SLOTS, WHICH
LITERALLY IN PLAIN ENGLISH IS
ABOUT THE RIGHT TO LAND A PLANE.
I'M VERY PLEASED THAT WE WERE
ABLE TO WORK OUT OUR BIPARTISAN
AGREEMENT.
I OUTLINED WHY IT WAS SO
IMPORTANT EARLIER IN THE
MORNING.
THE
SENATE WILL BE IN ORDER, PLEASE.
THE SENATOR FROM OREGON.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
GIVEN ALL THE ATTENTION THAT
THAT DISCUSSION RECEIVED, I JUST
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
SENATE DIDN'T LOSE SIGHT OF
ANOTHER IMPORTANT AVIATION
ISSUE.
CHAIRMAN ROCKEFELLER HAS BEEN
VERY, VERY SUPPORTIVE OF OUR
EFFORTS TO TRY TO EXPAND AND
IMPROVE THE UNMANNED AERIAL
SYSTEMS, WHAT ARE KNOWN AS THE
U.A.S. PROGRAMS THAT ARE SO
ESSENTIAL FOR THE FUTURE OF THE
AVIATION SECTOR.
IN THIS PART OF THE AVIATION
SECTOR, WE HAVE SEEN ENORMOUS
GROWTH IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.
A LOT OF FOLKS KNOW THAT THESE
OPERATIONS.
SYSTEMS ARE CRITICAL TO MILITARY
THEY HAVE BEEN OF ENORMOUS
AFGHANISTAN.
IMPORTANCE IN IRAQ AND
BUT PEOPLE MAY NOT BE AS AWARE
THAT THESE UNMANNED AERIAL
SYSTEMS ALSO HAVE ENORMOUS
POTENTIAL IN THE CIVILIAN
SECTOR.
WE'RE TALKING HERE NOW,
MR. PRESIDENT, ABOUT FIRE
FIGHTING, LAW ENFORCEMENT,
BORDER PATROL, SEARCH AND
RESCUE, ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING, AND ALSO LAW
ENFORCEMENT.
LAW ENFORCEMENT IN RURAL AREAS
AREAS -- THAT IS MUCH OF MY
STATE, BUT I KNOW OTHER PARTS OF
THE COUNTRY ARE ALSO VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.
AS YET, THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT YET COME
UP WITH A GOOD PLAN FOR HOW TO
INTEGRATE THESE UNMANNED AERIAL
SYSTEMS, THESE UNMANNED AERIAL
AIRSPACE.
SYSTEM VEHICLES INTO THE
SO I'M PLEASED THAT THE BILL
BEFORE US INCLUDES REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION TO WORK ON A PLAN
FOR THESE SYSTEMS AND ESTABLISH
TEST SITES FOR U.A.S. RESEARCH.
BUT IT'S MY HOPE, MR. PRESIDENT,
AS WE GO FORWARD -- AND CHAIRMAN
ROCKEFELLER HAS BEEN VERY, VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF OUR EFFORTS.
WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS MANY TIMES.
IT'S GOING TO BE POSSIBLE TO
EXPAND THESE SITES.
I AND SENATOR SCHUMER AND A
NUMBER OF COLLEAGUES ARE
INTERESTED IN THIS.
THIS IS A CHANCE, COLLEAGUES,
FOR THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION TO FINALLY GIVE
THESE UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS
THE ATTENTION AND THE PRIORITY
THAT'S WARRANTED.
THERE IS ENORMOUS POTENTIAL HERE
IN THE CIVILIAN SECTOR.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT IN THE
MILITARY SECTOR.
I WANT TO YIELD NOW TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, WHO'S
BEEN EXCEPTIONALLY HELPFUL TO ME
NOT JUST ON THIS QUESTION OF THE
UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS, BUT FOR
HIS PATIENCE AS WE WORKED
THROUGH THE SLOTS ISSUES WHERE
WE FINALLY GOT THE BREAKTHROUGH
THIS MORNING.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD BE GLAD TO
YIELD TO YOU FOR ANY COMMENTS
THAT YOU HAVE.
I THANK THE
SENATOR VERY MUCH.
I ACTUALLY WANTED TO THANK YOU.
I'VE GOT OUR COLLOQUY RIGHT IN
FRONT OF ME, BUT I JUST WANT TO
SAY TO YOU THAT I AGREE WITH
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I WANT TO BE HELPFUL.
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE
HELPFUL.
AND THERE'S SOME IN A POSITION
NOT TO BE HELPFUL ON THIS AND
WHO ARE NOT BEING HELPFUL.
I UNDERSTAND THAT AND SUCH IS
LIFE.
I WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO BE
HELPFUL ON THIS, NOT JUST ON THE
SUBSTANCE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN
SO IMPORTANT IN THE RESOLUTION
OF WHICH YOU MENTIONED AT THE
VERY END.
THAT IS THE SLOTS.
YOU'VE BEEN A NONSTOP
PEACEMAKER, SORT OF THE
SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE U.N.
AND YOU REALLY HAVE.
I RESPECT THAT AND I APPRECIATE
IT.
THIS IS COMPLICATED STUFF.
IT'S EMOTIONAL STUFF.
AND YOU'VE BEEN GREAT.
SO I WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
YOU ON THIS AND TRY TO GET TO
OUR MUTUAL GOAL.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
WANT TO JUST THANK THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE FULL COMMITTEE.
GRACIOUS.
HE'S BEEN EXCEPTIONALLY
I THINK SENATORS UNDERSTAND WE
WOULD NOT BE HERE, OTHER THAN
THE FACT THAT YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN,
AND SENATOR HUTCHISON HAVE
PROSECUTED THIS CASE
RELENTLESSLY IN A BIPARTISAN
WAY.
WE KNEW IF WE STAYED AT IT ON
THE SLOTS ISSUE THAT WE WOULD
GET IT RESOLVED.
I THANK YOU FOR GIVING ALL THE
OTHER THINGS YOU HAVE ON YOUR
PLATE, YOUR HELP WITH THE
UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS.
SENATOR SCHUMER AND I HAVE HAD
STRONG VIEWS ON THIS, AND WE ARE
FAIRLY PASSIONATE CHARACTERS.
US.
YOU HAVE BEEN VERY PATIENT FOR
WE KNOW WE'VE GOT SOME
CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF WORKING
OUT THE EXACT NUMBER OF
ADDITIONAL SITES, BUT WE THANK
YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A GOOD BILL,
GOING TO GO TO CONFERENCE IN A
STRONG POSITION, AND IT COULD
NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT YOUR
TENACITY AND SENATOR
HUTCHISON'S.
AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP.
I THANK AGAIN
THE SENATOR FROM OREGON.
HE'S GONE WAY BEYOND THE NATURE
OF HIS COLLOQUY, BUT I LIKE WHAT
HE SAID.
MR. PRESIDENT, UNANIMOUS CONSENT
TUBING PUT THIS COLLOQUY BETWEEN
THE SENATOR FROM OREGON AND
MYSELF IN THE RECORD.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
WANT TO ADD MY VOICE OF THANKS
TO ALL INVOLVED IN THE WHOLE
SLOTS ISSUE.
I KNOW AT THE LAST MINUTE
SENATOR WYDEN WAS DOING ACTUAL
SHUTTLING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN
ONE SIDE OF THE CHAMBER AND THE
OTHER.
I THINK IT TURNED OUT WELL.
IT COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED
WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE
CHAIRMAN AND THE RANKING MEMBER.
AGAIN, COMING FROM THE LARGEST
STATE IN THE UNION, WE HAVE ONE
FLIGHT INTO WASHINGTON, D.C.
IT MAKES NO SENSE.
IT ISN'T GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY.
IT'S INCONVENIENT.
IT ADDS A LOT OF CONGESTION ON
THE HIGHWAYS HERE.
AND WE'RE VERY PLEASED THAT
WE'RE ON OUR WAY TO PASSING A
GOOD BILL.
I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT
BUSINESS.
THAT I SPEAK AS IF IN MORNING
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU.
MR. PRESIDENT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
I WANT TO SEND A BILL TO THE
DESK IN BEHALF OF MYSELF AND
SENATORS CASEY, TESTER, MANCHIN,
WARNER AND WYDEN.
I WANT TO EXPLAIN IT.
AND I HOPE THAT WE'LL SEE ACTION
ON THIS BILL IN THE NEAR FUTURE,
BECAUSE WE ARE ON VERY DELICATE
GROUND RIGHT NOW AS WE TRY TO
RESOLVE THE BUDGET ISSUES BEFORE
US.
WE HAVE TWO SIDES TO THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, THE HOUSE
AND THE SENATE; VERY DIFFERENT,
I THINK, APPROACHES TO THIS
DEFICIT PROBLEM, WHICH IS QUITE
REAL.
AND BOTH SIDES SHOULD BE
RESPECTFUL OF EACH OTHER.
BUT THE MESSAGES THAT I AM
GETTING VIA THE MEDIA IN TERMS
OF THE LANGUAGE BEING USED ON
THE OTHER SIDE IS WE DON'T
REALLY MUCH CARE WHAT THE SENATE
THINKS.
IT'S KIND OF OUR WAY OR THE
HIGHWAY TYPE OF RHETORIC.
NOW, THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS
THAT THE TYPE OF CUTS THAT ARE
COMING OUT OF, FROM THE OTHER
SIDE, FROM THE HOUSE SIDE, FROM
OUR REPUBLICAN FRIENDS OVER
THERE, ECONOMISTS TELL US WILL
COST 800,000 JOBS TO THIS
NATION.
800,000 JOBS WILL BE LOST IF WE
DON'T MAKE SOME CHANGES TO WHAT
THEY'VE DONE OVER THERE.
AND AS SOMEONE FROM A STATE THAT
HAS A VERY TOUGH ECONOMIC
CLIMATE, TRYING TO CLIMB OUT OF
THIS RECESSION, THAT'S JUST
EXTREME.
IT'S JUST EXTREME.
NOW, ARE WE WILLING TO MAKE
CUTS?
YES.
AND IT IS MY BELIEF THAT BOTH
SIDES HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND WORK
THIS OUT.
WE BELIEVE THERE ARE CUTS TO BE
MADE.
THEY'VE COME OUT WITH CUTS.
AND WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER.
BUT HERE'S WHAT TROUBLES ME, AND
LEGISLATION.
THIS IS WHY I'VE INTRODUCED THIS
WHAT TROUBLES ME IS THAT THERE
SEEMS TO BE MORE AND MORE
THREATS OF A GOVERNMENT
SHUTDOWN.
IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE NEW
HOUSE LEADERSHIP, WE DIDN'T HEAR
THAT.
NOW WE'RE HEARING IT.
IN PHREUT KOERBGS ONE OF THE
HEADLINES -- IN "POLITICO," ONE
OF THE HEADLINES RECENTLY WAS
McCONNELL WON'T TAKE SHUTDOWN
OFF THE TABLE.
LEADER.
THAT REFERS TO OUR REPUBLICAN
IN REUTERS, MAJORITY LEADER ERIC
CANTOR, REPUBLICAN MAJORITY
LEADER IN THE HOUSE -- QUOTE --
"REFUSED TO RULE OUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF A GOVERNMENT
SHUTDOWN."
UNQUOTE.
REPUBLICAN SENATOR MIKE LEE SAID
"THE 1995 GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
WAS JUST AN INCONVENIENCE."
I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU IT'S A LOT
MORE THAN AN INCONVENIENCE WHEN
SENIOR CITIZENS CAN'T GET HELP
GETTING THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY OR
VETERANS ON DISABILITY CAN'T GET
THEIR HELP, HOSPITALS CLOSE
DOWN, PROJECTS SHUT DOWN.
THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE OUT THERE,
AND A LOT OF CONTRACTORS IN THE
PRIVATE SECTOR THAT RELY ON THE
GOVERNMENT OPERATING, SUCH AS
ROAD PROJECTS AND BRIDGES BEING
REPAIRED AND THE REST.
IT'S RADICAL TO SAY THAT A
GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN IS AN
INCONVENIENCE.
IT'S A FAILURE.
A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN IS A
FAILURE OF THOSE OF US WHO ARE
HERE TO ACT LIKE ADULTS AND
RESOLVE OUR DIFFERENCES.
CNN SAID "TOP REPUBLICAN ON THE
SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE SAID
HE'S NOT RULING OUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF A GOVERNMENT
SHUTDOWN."
AND THE WAY SPEAKER BOEHNER
SPOKE TODAY IS, TO ME, KIND OF A
"TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT" TONE TO
IT.
I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU, THAT
BUDGET OVER THERE NOT ONLY
THREATENS 800,000 JOBS, BUT WHAT
THEY DID IS THEY LEGISLATED ON
AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY DECIDED
THAT WOMEN SHOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS
TO A FULL RANGE OF REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH CARE, SO THEY'RE BRINGING
IN THE ISSUE OF ABORTION ON A
BUDGET BILL.
NOW, I THINK THE ISSUE OF A
WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE AND HER
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE AND
GETTING PAP SCREENINGS AND
CANCER SCREENINGS IS IMPORTANT,
AND WE SHOULD DEBATE THAT HERE.
IF PEOPLE WANT TO REPEAL ROE V.
WADE, LET'S DEBATE THAT HERE.
WHAT THEY'VE DONE WITH THE CLEAN
AIR ACT -- AND I KNOW MY FRIEND
SITTING IN THE CHAIR CARES SO
MUCH ABOUT THIS.
THE CLEAN AIR ACT WAS BROUGHT TO
US BY RICHARD NIXON, BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT.
WHAT THEY DO IS THEY PROHIBIT
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY FROM ENFORCING THE CLEAN
AIR ACT AS IT RETHRAOEUTS
CARBON -- RELATES TO CARBON
POLLUTION, POLLUTION THAT IS
DANGEROUS TO OUR FAMILIES,
ENDANGERS THE LIVES AND THE
HEALTH OF OUR FAMILIES.
THAT'S WHAT THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION SAID WHEN THEY
WERE IN CHARGE, LET ALONE THE
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
SO RATHER THAN BRINGING TO THE
FLOOR A BILL TO REPEAL THE CLEAN
AIR ACT, I WOULD WELCOME THAT
DEBATE AND, OH, MY FRIEND WOULD
AS WELL.
THEY DO THIS THROUGH THE BACK
DOOR AND TELL THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY THEY CAN'T
PROTECT US FROM POLLUTION.
NOW THAT IS NOT WHAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT TO BE IN
A SIMPLE BUDGET DOCUMENT.
WE'VE GOT TO CUT SOME PROGRAMS,
LET CUT SOME PROGRAMS.
IT.
LET'S NOT CHANGE ABORTION LAW ON
LET'S NOT BRING UP HOW TO REPEAL
THE CLEAN AIR ACT ON IT.
LET'S NOT EVISCERATE LAW
SETTLEMENTS.
THEY'VE DONE A RANGE OF THINGS
HERE WHICH REALLY REQUIRE
DEBATE.
AND I WOULD LOVE TO PUT THESE
PEOPLE.
QUESTIONS TO THE AMERICAN
I CAN TELL YOU IN MY HOME STATE,
MY HOME STATE THINKS GOVERNMENT
HAS NO BUSINESS IN THE ISSUE OF
WOMEN'S HEALTH.
STAY AWAY, THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY.
WE'LL MAKE UP OUR OWN MINDS.
SOME OF US ARE PRO-CHOICE, SOME
OF US ARE NOT.
BUT DON'T TELL US WHAT TO
BELIEVE.
THAT'S MY STATE, THE MAJORITY OF
THE PEOPLE THERE.
THEY DON'T WANT BIG BROTHER AND
THE GOVERNMENT TELLING WOMEN
WHAT TO DO, AND THEY PUT IT ON A
BUDGET BILL.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
THE PEOPLE IN MY STATE, LET ME
TELL YOU, THEY WANT CLEAN AIR.
IN ALL THE YEARS I'VE BEEN IN
OFFICE -- AND THE PRESIDENT AND
I HAVE BEEN AROUND A WHILE
HOLDING DIFFERENT OFFICES -- NOT
ONE OF MY CONSTITUENTS EVERY
EVER CAME UP TO ME AND SAID,
BARBARA, WE NEED DIRTY AIMPLET
THE AIR IS TOO CLEAN.
THE WATER IS TOO PURE.
THE LAKES ARE TOO PRISTINE.
THE BEACHES ARE GORGEOUS.
NO, THEY WANT US TO MAKE SURE WE
PROTECT THEM FROM POLLUTION.
SO THAT THEIR KIDS CAN BREATHE
THE AIR AND NOT GET ASTHMA.
SO WHAT OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER
SIDE HAVE DONE IS THEY'VE DONE
THESE GARGANTUAN CUTS, AND IN
ADDITION TO THESE CUTS, WHICH
WILL COST US, ACCORDING TO
SENATOR INOUYE, 800,000 JOBS --
800,000 JOBS -- THEY HAVE
LEGISLATED ISSUES THAT ARE
CONTEN JUST AND DON'T BELONG ON
THE BUDGET BILL.
NOW, HERE'S THE DEAL.
I'M WORRIED THAT THEY JUST MIGHT
HIGHWAY.
SAY TO US, OUR WAY OR THE
I'M WORRIED ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S -- THAT'S WHAT I'M
STARTING TO HEAR.
AND IF THEY LEAD US INTO A
GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN AND WE FAIL
TO ACT LIKE ADULTS,
MR. PRESIDENT, AND RESOLVE THIS
AND KEEP THE CONTENTIOUS ISSUES
OFF THE BUDGET AND CUT
REASONABLIABLY AND SENSIBLY SO
THAT WE DON'T CAUSE MORE
UNEMPLOYMENT, IF WE CAN FIGURE
THAT OUT AND MEET EACH OTHER
HALFWAY IN EVERYTHING THAT YOU
DO WHAT YOU COMPROMISE, WE'LL BE
FINE.
BUT IF THAT ISN'T THE CASE, I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS SUFFER JUST AS MUCH
AS ANY FEDERAL EMPLOYEE.
SO I HAVE WRITTEN THIS BILL WITH
MY COLLEAGUES TO SAY THAT IN THE
EVENT OF A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
OR A FAILURE TO LIFT THE DEBT
CEILING -- AND WE START
DEFAULTING ON OUR COMMITMENTS --
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WILL NOT GET
PAID.
BECAUSE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
DON'T DESERVE TO BE PAID IF WE
CAN'T ACT LIKE ADULTS AND
NEGOTIATOR THIS.
I AM SO TIRED OF THE HIGH POO
CRY SIS THAT I HAVE SEEN -- I
KNOW IT IS A STRONG WORD AND I
AM NOT LEVELING IT AT ANY
PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL.
BUT I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU, YOU'VE
GOT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE THAT
SAID, BECOMECARE IS TAIRBLED AND
THEN THEY TOOK IT FOR
THEMSELVES.
SO WHAT PRICE ARE THEY PAYING?
THEY VOTE "NO" ON HEALTH CARE
FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, BUT THEY
KEEP GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE.
IT'S WRONG.
A LOT OF THEM ARE SLEEPING IN
THEIR OFFICES.
YOU TELL ME ONE OTHER PERSON
THAT YOU KNOW, MR. PRESIDENT,
THAT IS ALLOWED TO SLEEP IN THE
OFFICE OF THEIR CORPORATION THAT
THEY MAY WORK FOR.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE'S
NOBODY.
THEY DON'T PAY ANY RENT.
THEY SLEEP IN THEIR OFFICES.
SO THEY DO ALL THESE THINGS.
THEY DON'T HELP THE HOUSING
CRISIS.
AND THEY SLEEP IN THEIR OFFICES.
THEY WON'T VOTE FOR HEALTH CARE,
BUT THEY TAKE GOVERNMENT HEALTH
CARE.
AND NOW THEY MIGHT SHUT DOWN THE
GOVERNMENT, AND WHILE FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES WILL NOT GET PAID,
THEY'LL GET PAID.
NO WAY.
WRONG.
NOT FAIR.
THEY HAVE TO PAY A PRICE FOR ALL
THEIR EXTREMISM.
SO I HOPE WE'LL PASS THIS BILL
AND SEND IT OVER TO THE HOUSE,
AND THE HOUSE CAN DECIDE IF THEY
THINK THIS IS RIGHT.
THIS IS ONE I'D LIKE TO TAKE TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BECAUSE IF
THEY SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT OR
THEY FAIL TO RAISE THE DEBT
CEILING, AND WE START TO DEFAULT
AND THEY PAY NO PRICE, IT'S NOT
FAIR.
YOU KNOW, WE CANNOT STAMP OUR
FEET AND SAY, IT'S THE WAY I
WANT IT OR I'M TAKING MY MARBLES
AND I'M GOING HOME.
OR MY TEDDY BEAR OR MY BLANKET
OR WHATEVER.
YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
THIS IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN
THE WORLD, AND AS MY FRIEND,
SENATOR SANDERS WHO'S IN THE
CHAIR SO BEAUTIFULLY SAID LAST
NIGHT ON A NEWS SHOW -- IT WAS
SO WE WE WELL-DONE -- HE SAID, THE
MIDDLE-CLASS IS HURTING.
REAL INCOME IS GOING DOWN.
AND AS WE LOOK AT THESE BUDGET
CUTS, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT
THAT.
AND I'M THINKING A LOT ABOUT IT.
AND I'M SEEING HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF JOBS BEING LOST BY
THE MIDDLE CLASS, NOT BY THE
WEALTHY FEW.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE TOUCHED
BY THIS.
SO THIS IS A VERY SIMPLE BILL.
I'LL TELL YOU WHAT IT SAYS.
"MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE
PRESIDENT SHALL NOT RECEIVE
BASIC PAY FOR ANY PERIOD IN
WHICH THERE'S MORE THAN A
24-HOUR LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS
FOR ANY FEDERAL AGENCY OR
DEPARTMENT AS A RESULT OF A
FAILURE TO ENACT A REGULAR
APPROPRIATIONS BILL OR A
CONTINUING RESOLUTION OR IF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS UNABLE TO
MAKE PAYMENTS OR MEET
OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE THE DEBT
LIMIT HAS BEEN REACHED."
SO IT'S SIMPLE.
SO I REALLY AM CALLING ON MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE TO TAKE THE OPTION OF
A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN OFF THE
TABLE.
I HOPE THIS LEGISLATION WILL
NUDGE THEM IN THAT DIRECTION.
LET THEM THINK ABOUT WHAT IT'S
LIKE NOT TO GET PAID.
BECAUSE IF THEY SHUT DOWN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, A WHOLE LOT
OF FOLKS WON'T GET PAID, AND A
LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR WON'T GET PAID, AND A LOT
OF PEOPLE ON PENSIONS WON'T GET
PAID, BUT THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT
WOULD BE EXEMPTED PRETTY MUCH:
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
AND WE HAVE TO PUT AN END TO
THAT DICHOTOMY.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, THANK YOU FOR
ALL YOUR LEADERSHIP IN BEHALF OF
THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE WORKING
POOR, AND I THINK THE I HAD POCK
CHRISSIE HAS GOT TO END, AND I
-- I FEEL THAT WE'VE GOT TO COME
ON THIS FLOOR AND START TELLING
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE TRUTH.
AND THE TRUTH IS, THE CUTS OVER
THERE ON THE OTHER SIDE ARE
GOING TO HURT THE MIDDLE CLASS.
THEY'RE EXTREME.
THEY HAVE ADDED LANGUAGE THAT
DOESN'T BELONG ON A BUDGET BILL.
BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THEY SAID
THEY WERE ABOUT JOBS, JOBS,
JOBS, MAYBE THEY WERE HOW TO
LOSE ANOTHER 800,000 JOBS.
MAYBE THAT'S WHAT THEY MEANT.
BUT NOBODY THOUGHT THEY'D COME
IN HERE AND THE FIRST THING
THEY'D DO IS ATTACH ABORTION
LANGUAGE, FAMILY PLANNING
LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, EVISCERATE
THE E.P.A.'S ABILITY TO CLEAN UP
CARBON POLLUTION HON A BUDGET
BILL, AND WE'VE TO START LETTING
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW.
BECAUSE THEY'RE BUSY AND THEY
DON'T GET TO READ, YOU KNOW, ALL
THE INS AND OUTS OF WHAT HAPPENS
HERE.
WE'VE GO GOLT TO PUT IT -- WE'VE
GOT TO PUT IT IN STRAIGHTFORWARD
LANGUAGE.
SENATE.
TODAY IS A VERY GOOD DAY IN THE
WE HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TOGETHER
AND A LOT OF THAT CREDIT GOES TO
SENATOR ROCKEFELLER AND SENATOR
HUTCHISON.
I AM FROWD SERVE ON THEIR
COMMITTEE.
WE'RE DOING A GOOD JOB.
WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER.
WE WORKED OUT OUR PROBLEMS.
WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH NEW
FLIGHTS OUT OF NATIONAL.
NO ONE THOUGHT WE SHOULD RESOLVE
IT BUT YOU KNOW WHAT?
WE WERE HAPPY TO WORK TOGETHER
-- REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS,
PEOPLE FROM THE EAST, THE WEST,
THE MIDWEST.
AND WE SHOWED THAT WE CAN DO
SOMETHING HERE TODAY.
AND WE'RE ABOUT TO PASS A VERY
GOOD BILL.
MY PASSAGE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
IS IN THAT.
I'M THRILLED SO MUCH.
IT WAS A BOXER-SNOWE BILL.
IT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN
HERE.
IF YOU GET STUCK ON AN AIRLINE,
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO EXPECT
NOURISHMENT AND THE TOILETS
THAT YOU'LL HAVE WATER AND
WON'T BE OVERFLOWING AND THAT IF
THE PLANE IS STUCK FOR THREE
HOURS, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO
FLIGHT.
HAVE THE OPTION TO GET OFF THAT
SO, LISTEN, THERE'S GOOD THINGS
THAT WE CAN DOVMENT WE'VE
PROVETON HERE TODAY.
BUT I'M GETTING INCREASINGLY
GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.
NERVOUS ABOUT THE THREATS OF A
AND I THINK IF MEMBERS KNOW THAT
IT ISN'T JUST PAIN THAT'S GOING
TO BE INFLICTED ON SOMEONE ELSE
BUT THEY'LL INFLICT PAIN ON
THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES,
JUST MAYBE THEY'LL TAKE THAT
OPTION OFF THE TABLE.
I THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. PRESIDENT.
AND I YIELD THE FLOOR.
AND UNLESS SENATOR ROCKEFELLER
OR SENATOR HUTCHISON WANTS TO
SPEAK, I WOULD NOTE THE ABSENCE
OF A QUORUM.
THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
QUORUM CALL:
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM UTAH.
MR. PRESIDENT, THIS
WEEK --
QUORUM
CALL.
OH, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT THE QUORUM CALL BE
DISPENSED WITH.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. PRESIDENT, THIS
WEEK THE SENATE BEGAN A DEBATE
ABOUT NOTHING LESS THAN THE
FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY.
NEXT YEAR, WE FACE A
$1.65 TRILLION DEFICIT, THE
THIRD YEAR IN A ROW WHERE THE
UNITED STATES WILL RUN A DEFICIT
OF OVER A TRILLION DOLLARS.
EVEN MORE DAUNTING, WE ARE OVER
$14 TRILLION IN TOTAL DEBT AS WE
STAND HERE ON THE FLOOR TODAY.
ACCORDING TO THE NONPARTISAN
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, OR
C.B.O., THE DEBT HELD BY THE
PUBLIC IS PROJECTED TO REACH
$18.3 TRILLION, OR 77% OF
G.D.P., BY THE END OF 2021.
NOW, THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT
TRULY THREATENS THE WELL-BEING
OF OUR NATION.
C.B.O. PROJECTS THAT THE COSTS
OF SIMPLY PAYING THE INTEREST ON
ALL OF THIS DEBT WILL RISE TO
$792 BILLION, OR 3.3% OF G.D.P.
IN 2021.
NOW, WHEN YOU ARE PUSHING A
$1 TRILLION-A-YEAR IN INTEREST
PAYMENTS ALONE, YOU ARE REACHING
A DAY WHEN THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT WILL NOT -- WILL NOT
HAVE THE RESOURCES TO ACCOMPLISH
EVEN THE LIMITED MISSION
DELEGATED TO IT BY THE
CONSTITUTION.
THIS IS WHAT ADMIRAL MIKE MULL
LEARN, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF MEANT, WHEN HE
TESTIFIED TODAY THAT -- QUOTE --
"OUR DEBT IS THE GREATEST THREAT
TO NATIONAL SECURITY."
THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE LED ON
THIS ISSUE WHEN HE RELEASED HIS
BUDGET EARLIER THIS WEEK, BUT HE
TOOK A PASS INSTEAD.
APPARENTLY HE AND HIS DEMOCRATIC
CONGRESSIONAL ALLIES HAVE DONE
SOME POLLING THAT TELLS THEM TWO
THINGS.
FIRST, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE
DEMANDING THAT WASHINGTON TACKLE
OUR ANNUAL DEFICITS AND
SKYROCKETING DEBT.
AND SECONDLY, THE DEMOCRATS CAN
BENEFIT POLITICALLY BY STANDING
ASIDE, LETTING REPUBLICANS
PROPOSE SOLUTIONS TO THIS
PROBLEM, OR THESE PROBLEMS, AND
THEN DEMAGOGUING THE DAYLIGHT
OUT OF ANY EFFORT TO RESTRAIN
SPENDING.
THE COMING DEBATE IS GOING TO BE
A BRUISING ONE.
BUT AS WE GO FORWARD, IT IS
CRITICAL THAT WE KEEP AT LEAST
ONE THING IN MIND -- WE CANNOT
GET OUT OF THIS HOLE BY TAKING
MONEY.
MORE OF TAXPAYERS' HARD-EARNED
OUR DEBT AND DEFICIT PROBLEMS
EXIST BECAUSE WASHINGTON SPENDS
TOO MUCH, NOT BECAUSE TAXES ARE
TOO LOW.
IT IS A TERRIBLE IDEA TO PROPOSE
RAISING TAXES BY OVER
$1.6 TRILLION ON NET OVER THE
NEXT TEN YEARS ALONE, YET THAT
IS EXACTLY WHAT THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION'S BUDGET,
RELEASED EARLIER THIS WEEK,
PROPOSES.
I SAID IT EARLIER THIS WEEK AND
I WILL SAY IT AGAIN -- THIS
BUDGET PROVES ONCE AND FOR ALL
THAT OUR DEFICITS AND DEBT ARE
NOT CAUSED BY OUR TAXES BEING
TOO LOW.
THE PRESIDENT HAS PROPOSED A NET
TAX INCREASE OF OVER
$1.6 TRILLION YET FOR NEXT YEAR
AND EVERY YEAR OF HIS TEN-YEAR
BUDGET, HE RUNS A DEFICIT.
AT THEIR BEST, THE ANNUAL
DEFICITS DIP TO ROUGHLY $600
BILLION AND THAT'S IF 9 -- IF
THE C.B.O. IS RIGHT, AND THEY'RE
GENERALLY NOT RIGHT.
THEY'RE GENERALLY ALWAYS LOW.
EVEN AFTER THESE ASTRONOMICAL
TAX INCREASES, THE PRESIDENT IS
STILL UNABLE TO BALANCE THE
BUDGET.
AND THERE ARE NOT MANY MORE EASY
TARGETS FOR DEMOCRATS TO TAX.
IN 2012, IN A FOOLISH ATTEMPT AT
CLASS WARFARE, DEMOCRATS ARE
PREPARED TO LET THE TAX RATES
EXPIRE WITH FAR-REACHING
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS WHO ACCOUNT FOR
HALF OF ALL SMALL BUSINESS
FLOWTHROUGH INCOME.
THOSE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS
WOULD SEE THEIR MARGINAL RATES
HIKED BY 17% TO 24% UNDER THIS
BUDGET WHEN THAT HAPPENS.
IN OBAMACARE, THEY TAX MEDICAL
DEVICES, INSURANCE PLANS,
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, SMALL
BUSINESSES, AND INDIVIDUAL
AMERICANS.
THE RESULT?
A SURPRISE ONLY TO THE MOST
HARDENED IDEOLOGUES, IS THE LOSS
OF 800,000 JOBS, ACCORDING TO
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,
AND YET THEY STILL CAN'T BALANCE
THE BUDGET.
SO WHO ELSE DO THEY PROPOSE TO
TAX?
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THERE
ISN'T ANYONE LEFT TO TAX UNLESS
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS DEMOCRATIC
ALLIES ARE WILLING TO CRUSH THE
MIDDLE CLASS WITH ADDITIONAL TAX
BURDENS.
THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY OUT -- WE
NEED TO RESTRAIN SPENDING.
AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE
BUDGET COMMITTEE, CONGRESSMAN
PAUL RYAN, EXPLAINED, WE NEED TO
GET SPENDING IN LINE WITH
REVENUE, NOT THE OTHER WAY
AROUND.
THE ANALYSIS OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, OR
C.B.O., CONFIRMED THIS.
C.B.O. IS THE NONPARTISAN
OFFICIAL SCORE KEEPER FOR
CONGRESS.
ACCORDING TO ITS JANUARY 2011
BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FROM
1971-2010, TAX HAVE AVERAGED 18%
OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT OR
G.D.P.
SO IN RECENT HISTORY, WE'VE HAD
AN AVERAGE LEVEL OF TAXATION OF
AROUND 18% OF G.D.P.
NOW, TAKE A LOOK AT THIS
PARTICULAR CHART THAT WAS MADE
USING C.B.O.'S JANUARY 2011
DOCUMENT.
C.B.O. EXPLAINS THAT IF NO
CHANGES IN LAW ARE MADE, TAXES
WILL GO UP 20.8% OF G.D.P. BY
2021 AND WILL AVERAGE 19.9% FROM
2012-2021.
TAXES AT 28.8% OF G.D.P. WOULD
REPRESENT A TAX INCREASE OF 16%
AVERAGE.
FROM THEIR RECENT HISTORICAL
C.B.O. ALSO STATES THAT IF MOST
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
DECEMBER 2010 TAX ACT WERE MADE
PERMANENT, THEN -- QUOTE --
"ANNUAL REVENUES WOULD AVERAGE
ABOUT 18% OF G.D.P. THROUGH
2021, WHICH IS EQUAL TO THEIR
40-YEAR AVERAGE."
WELL, AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS CHART
IS VERY EREVELATORY.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT GOES FROM
1971-2021.
AND THAT'S REVENUES AS A
PERCENTAGE OF G.D.P., AND WE'RE
GOING TO BE WAY UP ABOVE THE 18%
AVERAGE.
SO ACCORDING TO C.B.O., EVEN IF
ALL THE BUSH-ERA TAX RATES WERE
PERMANENTLY EXTEND, TAXES WOULD
STILL BE HIGH ENOUGH WHEN
MEASURED AGAINST THE LEVEL OF
TAXATION IN RECENT HISTORY.
SO IF TAXES ARE HIGH ENOUGH
ALREADY, SHOULD WE RAISE THEM
ANY WAY?
I'LL GO AHEAD AND ANSWER MY OWN
RHETORICAL QUESTION -- OF COURSE
HIGHER.
WE SHOULD NOT RAISE TAXES ANY
ON AUGUST 14, 2008, JASON
FUHRMAN AND AUSTIN GOLDSTEEN
WROTE A WALL "WALL STREET JOURNAL"
EDITORIAL N. THAT EDITORIAL,
THEY STATED THAT CANDIDATE
OBAMA'S TAX PLAN WOULD REDUCE --
QUOTE -- "REVENUES TO LESS THAN
18.2% OF G.D.P., THE LEVEL OF
PRESIDENT REAGAN."
TAXES THAT REPRAILD UNDER PREVAILED UNDER
TODAY, AUSTIN GOALSBY IS THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE -- PRESIDENT
OBAMA, HIS ADMINISTRATION'S
COUNSEL OF ECONOMIC ADVISE --
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS,
AND FUHRMAN IS THE DIRECTOR OF
COUNCIL.
OBAMA'S NATIONAL ECONOMIC
THE PRESIDENT MUST HAVE MISSED
THEIR EDITORIAL BECAUSE HIS
RECENTLY RELEASED BUDGET IGNORES
THE CAMPAIGN PROMISES OF
THOSE -- OF THESE TWO TOP
OFFICIALS AND RAISES TAXES WELL
ABOVE THEIR HISTORICAL LEVELS.
AS ONE WRITER HAS PUT IT, ALL OF
THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN
EXPIRATION DATE.
PROMISES SEEM TO COME UP WITH AN
AS THIS DEBATE OVER THE DEBT AND
DEFICITS RAGES ON, PAY CLOSE
ATTENTION TO THE WORDS THAT
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS USE.
YOU WILL HEAR REPUBLICANS SAY
THAT WE NEED SPENDING RESTRAINT.
BY CONTRAST, YOU WILL HEAR
DEMOCRATS SAY THAT WE NEED TO
DEAL WITH THE DEFICIT.
LET'S BE CLEAR.
DEALING WITH THE DEFICIT IS CODE
FOR RAISING TAXES.
LIBERAL PUNDIT AFTER LIBERAL
PUNDIT WILL PRONOUNCE
CONFIDENTLY THAT YOU CAN'T DEAL
WITH THE DEFICIT SOLELY WITH
SPENDING RESTRAINT.
YET THEY WON'T SAY WHY.
AND THEY WON'T EXPLAIN HOW YOU
CAN DEAL WITH THE DEFICIT AND
DEBT THROUGH TAX INCREASES.
THAT'S BECAUSE THEY CAN'T.
IF THEY COME CLEAN WITH THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, THEY WOULD HAVE
TO ADMIT THAT THEIR INTENTION IS
TO RAISE TAXES ON EVERYONE AND
EVERYTHING.
AS I'VE ALREADY SHOWN, TAXES ARE
HIGH ENOUGH ALREADY AND WE
SHOULD NOT BE RAISING THEM EVEN
HIGHER, YET THE BOTTOM LINE IS
THAT RATHER THAN DEALING
SERIOUSLY WITH OUT-OF-CONTROL
SPENDING, TAX-AND-SPEND
DEMOCRATS WANT TO RAISE TAXES TO
PAY FOR MORE OUT-OF-CONTROL
SPENDING.
AND GUESS WHAT?
IF WE RAISE TAXES TO ELIMINATE
THE DEFICIT, THE CURRENT LEVELS
OF SPENDING WOULD JUST CAUSE A
NEW DEFICIT TO ARISE.
I HAVE A CHART HERE THAT
DEMONSTRATES JUST HOW FUTILE IT
IS TO RAITZ -- IT IS TO RAISE THE TOP
MORE MONEY.
TAX RATE IF THE GOAL IS TO RAISE
NOW, YOU'LL NOTICE THE RED LINE
ON THE TOP IS THE TOP MARGINAL
TAX RAY.
THE REVENUE LINE ON THE BOTTOM
IS A PERCENTAGE -- AS A
ONE.
PERCENTAGE OF G.D.P. IS THE BLUE
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TOP TAX
RATE -- AS THE TOP TAX RATE
CHANGES, REVENUE AS A PERCENTAGE
OF G.D.P. ACTUALLY STAYS AROUND
THE SAME.
NOW, WHEN THE TOP TAX RATE HAS
BEEN RAISED OVER THE YEARS,
TAXES AS A PERCENTAGE OF G.D.P.
STILL HOVERED AROUND THEIR
HISTORICAL AVERAGE OF 18%.
NOW, THIS HELD TRUE EVEN WHEN
THE TOP TAX RATE WAS RAISED TO A
CONFISCATORY LEVEL OF OVER 90%.
THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE IS THAT
WE CAN SIMPLY RAISE MORE TAX
REVENUE BY INCREASING TAX RATES.
HOWEVER, THE HISTORY IS PRETTY
CLEAR.
THIS IS SIMPLY -- THIS STRATEGY
SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK.
JUST TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS
CHART IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME.
THROUGH ALL OF IT, WE'VE HAD THE
TOP TAX MARGINAL RATES VERY HIGH
BACK IN 1944 AND THEN ALL THE
WAY DOWN HERE TO WHERE THEY'RE
ABOUT 39% AND THE REVENUE AS A
PERCENTAGE OF G.D.P. HASN'T
CHANGED.
SO THE TOP MARGINAL TAX RATE
DIDN'T REALLY HELP.
NOW, INSTEAD OF RAISING TAX
RATES, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS
IMPLEMENT A PRO-GROWTH TAX
POLICY.
THAT STARTS WITH NOT RAISING
TAXES.
FOR TWO YEARS, WE WERE ABLE TO
FIGHT OFF TAX INCREASES ON SMALL
BUSINESSES PROPOSED BY PRESIDENT
OBAMA AND CONGRESSIONAL
DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP.
HOWEVER, I HAVE ANOTHER CHART
HERE THAT SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE ANNUAL GROWTH OF THE
FEDERAL REVENUES AND G.D.P.
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS CHART,
WHEN G.D.P. INCREASES -- AND, OF
COURSE, THE RED LINE HAPPENS TO
BE THE REVENUES; G.D.P. HAPPENS
TO BE THE GREEN LINE, GROSS
DOMESTIC PRODUCT -- WHEN G.D.P.
INCREASES, FEDERAL REVENUES
INCREASE.
SIMILARLY, WHEN G.D.P.
DECREASES, FEDERAL REVENUES
DECREASE.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE A SHOCKING
REVELATION.
WHEN THE ECONOMY IS GROWING, THE
GOVERNMENT COLLECTS MORE MONEY
TO TAX REVENUES BECAUSE THERE IS
MORE TAXABLE INCOME BEING
EARNED.
THE KEY IS TO HAVE COMMONSENSE,
POLICIES.
PRO-GROWTH TAX AND REGULATORY
AND AS I MENTIONED BEFORE,
PRO-GROWTH AGENDA STARTS WITH
REFUSING TO RAISE TAXES.
I MEAN, JUST LOOK AT THAT CHART.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS
THAT THE G.D.P. BASICALLY HAS
GONE DOWN A LITTLE BIT BUT, AS
YOU CAN SEE, TAXES ARE NOW UP
AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE UP WELL
INTO 2021.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, A
PRO-GROWTH AGENDA STARTS WITH
REFUSING TO RAISE TAXES.
PART OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ON
WHETHER TO INCREASE TAXES COME
FROM -- COMES FROM DIFFERENT
WAYS OF LOOKING AT THE WORLD.
CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS LOOK AT
THE MONEY EARNED BY THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE AND UNDERSTAND THAT IT
BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE.
AS FREE MEN AND WOMEN, AMERICAN
CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO THE
FRUIT OF THEIR OWN LABORS.
AMERICANS WORK TOO HARD.
THEY SACRIFICE TOO MUCH FOR
WASHINGTON TO BLITHELY RAISE
THEIR TAXES TO PAY FOR AN
EVER-EXPANDING FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
YET LIBERAL DEMOCRATS HAVE A
DIFFERENT VIEW.
LISTENING TO PRESIDENT OBAMA AND
MANY CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS, IT
IS CLEAR THAT THEY VIEW THE
MONEY EARNED BY AMERICAN PEOPLE
AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S
MONEY FIRST.
IT IS ONLY BY THE GRACE OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY THAT
CITIZENS ARE GIVEN AN ALLOWANCE
TO LIVE ON.
NOW, THIS IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
YOU HEAR THAT WHEN LIBERALS TALK
ABOUT THE COST OF TAX CUTS.
THE COST OF TAX CUTS?
COST TO WHOM?
WHEN DEMOCRATS TALK LIKE THIS,
EFFECTIVELY SAYING THAT
ANYTHING YOU EARN IS THE
GOVERNMENT'S TO SPEND.
AND IT IS A COST TO THE
GOVERNMENT WHEN THEY DECIDE TO
LET YOU KEEP YOUR MONEY.
FOR MOST AMERICANS, THIS IS AN
ODD WAY OF LOOKING AT THE WORLD.
GOVERNMENT COSTS MONEY WHEN IT
SPENDS TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON
WHO KNOWS WHAT.
THE TAXPAYER DOES NOT COST THE
GOVERNMENT MONEY WHEN THE
TAXPAYER KEEPS WHAT THAT
TAXPAYER EARNS.
YET THIS LIBERAL WORLD VIEW WAS
ON CLEAR DISPLAY IN THE RECENT
DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER TO EXTEND
THE 2001 AND 2003 TAX CUTS.
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND MANY
CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS SAID
THAT WE SHOULDN'T -- SHOULD NOT
BE GIVING TAX BREAKS TO CERTAIN
TAXPAYERS.
SINCE WHEN DID KEEPING YOUR OWN
HARD-EARNED MONEY CONSTITUTE THE
GOVERNMENT GIVING YOU ANYTHING?
THIS IS NOT HOW THE AMERICAN
I VIEW IT.
PEOPLE VIEW IT AND IT'S NOT HOW
PRESIDENT OBAMA AN MANY
CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS VIEW A
FAILURE TO INCREASE TAXES AS A
GIVEAWAY TO TAXPAYERS THAT
INCREASE THE DEFICIT.
REPUBLICAN VIEW THE JOB-KILLING
TAX INCREASE WITH NEARLY 10%
UNEMPLOYMENT AS A TERRIBLE IDEA.
THE WAY TO DEAL WITH THE DEFICIT
IS NOT TO RAISE TAXES.
THE WAY TO DEAL WITH THE DEFICIT
IS TO LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS.
JUST LIKE FAMILIES AND
INDIVIDUALS DO ACROSS AMERICA.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD
ONLY SPEND WHAT IT TAKES IN.
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ALLIES
LIKE TO SAY THAT THEY INHERITED
THESE DEFICITS.
NOW, THAT'S ONLY A HALF TRUTH.
THEY INHERITED SOME DEBT AND
DEFICITS, BUT THEY HAVE HELPED
CREATE MUCH MORE.
FOR EXAMPLE NEARLY A TRILLION
DOLLARS WAS ADDED TO OUR DEBT BY
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PARTISAN
STIMULUS BILL.
THAT BILL WAS LOADED UP WITH
PENT-UP DEMOCRATIC AGENDA ITEMS
AND WAS SOLD WITH THE PROMISE
THAT IT WOULD KEEP UNEMPLOYMENT
BLOW 8% -- BELOW 8%.
WE KNOW BY THE PRESIDENT'S OWN
STANDARD THE STIMULUS BILL HAS
FAILED MISERABLY.
UNEMPLOYMENT HAS BEEN AT OR
ABOVE 9% FOR THE PAST 21 MONTHS.
THAT STIMULUS DEBT WAS NOT
INHERITED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA.
IT WAS CREATED BY PRESIDENT
OBAMA.
AND HE IS BEQUEATHING IT TO ALL
OF OUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN.
THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE.
WHEN DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER
WASHINGTON, IT WAS LIKE SETTING
HOMER SIMPSON LOOSE AT AN ALL
YOU CAN EAT BUFF FAYE.
FOR -- BUFFET.
FOR TOO LONG INTEREST GROUPS TO
CREATE NEW PROGRAMS AND GROW THE
SIZE OF GOVERNMENT HAD GONE
UNFULFILLED.
WHEN THEY SIEGED THE REIGN OF
POWER, LIBERAL DEMOCRATS WENT
HOG WILD.
OUR NATION'S DEFICIT HAS GONE
DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER CONGRESS --
FROM $150 BILLION IN 2007 WHEN
REMEMBER, THEY HAD TWO YEARS
BEFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA EVEN GOT
ELECTED.
THE DEMOCRATS WERE IN CONTROL OF
CONGRESS.
IT WENT FROM $161 BILLION IN
2007 TO $1.65 TRILLION IN 2011.
NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE DEBT,
WHEN CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS
TOOK OVER CONTROL OF CONGRESS IN
2007, THE DEBT WAS
WAS $8.68 TRILLION.
AND IT'S NOW OVER $14 TRILLION.
SO WHEN DEMOCRATS ARE TALKING
ABOUT WHAT A BAD SITUATION THEY
INHERITED, LET'S REMEMBER THESE
FOLKS HAD BEEN IN CHARGE OF
CONGRESS FOR THE LAST FOUR
YEARS.
AND THEY ACTED AS THOUGH THE
BILLS ON THEIR SPENDING WOULD
NEVER COME DUE.
AND LIKE A COLLEGE STUDENT WHO
MAXED OUT HIS PARENT'S CREDIT
CARD, DEMOCRATS ARE LOOKING FOR
SOMEONE TO BAIL THEM OUT.
UNFORTUNATELY THEY'RE LOOKING TO
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS TO FOOT
THE BILL.
THIS CANNOT HAPPEN.
THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER IS ALREADY
OVERBURDENED.
AND CITIZENS ARE NOT GOING TO
STAND FOR TAX HIKES WHEN
FOR.
SPENDING RESTRAINT IS CALLED
THE BOTTOM LINE SIMPLE, WE
CANNOT TAX OUR WAY OUT OF THIS
PROBLEM.
AND I PERSONALLY WILL RESIST ANY
EFFORT TO DO SO.
IF ONE OF THE REASONS I'M FOR A
BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT, I HAVE FOUND CONGRESS
IS INCAPABLE -- FISCALLY
INCAPABLE OF GETTING THIS MESS
UNDER CONTROL.
IT'S -- IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE
THAT WE'RE THAT INCAPABLE, BUT
WE ARE.
AND SO WE NEED TO PUT SOME
RESTRAINTS ON CONGRESS.
AND THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT, IN
MY OPINION, IS A BALANCED BUDGET
AMENDMENT.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST
WAY.
NOW, THERE ARE SOME WHO ARE
LOOKING AT PUTTING CAPS ON
SPENDING.
AND THAT SOUNDS GOOD EXCEPT FOR
ONE THING.
IF YOU BREAK THE CAPS, YOU'RE
GOING TO INCREASE TAXES.
I THINK WE FIND OURSELVES
INCREASES TAXES ALL THE TIME
AROUND HERE AND THAT'S A BIG
MISTAKE AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.
SO I'M VERY STRONGLY FOR THE
AMENDMENT.
BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL
I BELIEVE WITH THE MESS WE'RE
IN, GOOD PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE AISLE OUGHT TO BE INTERESTED
AS WELL.
NOW, LAST TIME I EFFECTIVELY
BROUGHT UP THE BILL AS FAR AS AN
AMENDMENT WE HAD 66 VOTES IN THE
SENATE, IT PASSED THE HOUSE
OVERWHELMINGLY.
IF WE HAD ONE MORE VOTE BACK IN
1997, WE WOULD HAVE HAD A
DIFFERENT SITUATION TODAY.
BECAUSE THE BALANCED BUDGET
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD
HAVE PASSED AND I BELIEVE THE 38
STATES WOULD HAVE RATIFIED IN A
VERY QUICK FASHION.
CERTAINLY WITHIN A YEAR OR SO.
HAD THAT HAPPENED, WE WOULDN'T
BE IN THE STINKING MESS WE'RE IN
TODAY.
WE'RE IN A TERRIBLE MESS.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS IS THAT
CONGRESS CAN'T GET ITS FISCAL
HOUSE IN ORDER.
AND THE REASON THEY CAN'T IS
BECAUSE OF WHAT I JUST -- I'VE
JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE
RESTRAINTS THAT THE BALANCED
BUDGET AMENDMENT WOULD BRING TO
FORCE CONGRESS TO HAVE TO LIVE
WITHIN ITS MEANS OR AT LEAST
VOTE TO BREAK THE BUDGET.
NOW, MOST -- MOST PEOPLE WHO
SPEND DON'T WANT THAT PROVISION.
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT WHEN THEY
VOTE TO BREAK THE BUDGET, THEIR
CONSTITUENTS ARE GOING TO SEE
THAT.
AND THEY MAY NOT BE HERE THE
NEXT ELECTION.
SO AS MUCH AS I WOULD PREFER TO
NOT HAVE ANY -- ANY ARTIFICIAL
APPROACH, I'VE COME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS JUST
PLAIN CANNOT HANDLE ITS OWN --
ITS OWN PROBLEMS.
IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE FISCAL
RESTRAINT TO DO IT.
NOW, A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT LOCKED INTO OUR
BELOVED CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD,
LIKE ALL THE STATES IN THIS
COUNTRY, EXCEPT VERMONT, REQUIRE
US TO BALANCE THE BUDGET OR AT
LEAST SHOW A REASON WHY NOT.
AND TO VOTE.
-- AND TO VOTE SO THAT WE HAVE
TO VOTE ON WHY NOT.
GERMANY HAS A BALANCED BUDGET
AMENDMENT AND THEY MEET THOSE
RESTRAINTS.
SWITZERLAND HAS A BALANCED
BUDGET AMENDMENT.
THEY MEET THOSE RESTRAINTS.
IF THEY CAN DO IT, WHY CAN'T WE?
I THINK WE'VE GOT TO GET REAL
AROUND HERE AND START DOING SOME
THINGS THAT WILL HELP SAVE THE
COUNTRY RATHER THAN PUSH IT
RIGHT INTO BANKRUPTCY.
AND THEY COME UP WITH BUILD
AMERICA BONDS.
WHY DO YOU THINK THEY DO THAT.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN PAYING
35% ON THAT.
GOVERNMENT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE FEDERAL
GUESS WHO PACE THAT 35% -- PAYS
THE 35%, ALL OF THE STATES THAT
HAVE LIVED WITH FISCAL RESTRAINT
WILL PAY FOR THE STATES THAT
DON'T LIVE WITH FISCAL
RESTRAINT.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO GO.
IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE STATES THAT
ARE CAREFUL WITH THEIR MONEY.
WE KNOW WHICH STATES THEY ARE.
IN ALMOST EVERY CASE, THEY'RE
STATES THAT ARE DOMINATED BY MY
FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE.
THE FACT IS I'M TOTALLY OPPOSED
TO THAT.
NOW, THEY ARE WILLING TO BRING
DOWN THE 35% THE GOVERNMENT --
OF THE GOVERNMENT MATCH TO 28%
IN THIS BUDGET, BUT THINK ABOUT
THAT.
THAT'S STILL 28% OUT OF AMERICAN
TAXPAYERS, MOST OF WHOM, WILL
HAVE LIVED WITH FISCAL RESTRAINT
IN HIS STATES TO HELP STATES
THAT HAVE NOT AND WHO PROBABLY
WON'T.
AND AS LONG AS THEY CAN GET FREE
MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT, WHY
NOT IN THEIR EYES?
NOW SOME OF THEM ARE IN SUCH
DIRE STRAITS THAT EVEN SOME OF
THESE GOVERNORS WHO HAVE BEEN
BIG LIBERALS IN THE PAST ARE
STARTING TO SAY, WE'VE GOT TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
I'M GOING TO PAY PARTICULAR
PRAISE TO THEM.
AND I HOPE THEY WILL BECAUSE
THEIR LACK OF FISCAL RESTRAINT
AND OUR LACK OF FISCAL RESTRAINT
HERE IS HURTING OUR COUNTRY.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I SUGGEST THE
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
CALL:
QUORUM CALL: