Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
TO DO ANY LESS IS A DERELICTION
OF DUTY.
I CALL ON ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES
TO PASS THIS FEMA SUPPLEMENTAL
BILL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, AND I
NOTICE THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. PRESIDENT.
THE
SENATOR FROM ALABAMA IS
I WOULD ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
QUORUM CALL BE DISPENSED WITH.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. PRESIDENT, IN
RECENT DAYS, THE PRESIDENT HAS
REPEATEDLY TOLD CONGRESS TO PASS
HIS STIMULUS PACKAGE
IMMEDIATELY.
THIS BEGAN DURING HIS JOINT
ADDRESS TO CONGRESS LAST WEEK
WHEN HE SAID AT ONE POINT I AM
SENDING THIS CONGRESS A PLAN
THAT YOU SHOULD PASS RIGHT AWAY.
YOU SHOULD PASS THIS JOBS PLAN
RIGHT AWAY, PASS THIS JOBS BILL,
PASS THIS JOBS BILL, CLOSE
QUOTE.
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE
PRESIDENT'S JOINT ADDRESS TO THE
CONGRESS, PRESS SECRETARY JAY
CARNEY DECLARED -- QUOTE --
"THE PRESIDENT WILL SUBMIT A
BILL EARLY NEXT WEEK, THE
AMERICAN JOBS ACT, WHICH WILL
SPECIFY HOW HE PROPOSES PAYING
FOR THE AMERICAN JOBS ACT."
SO AS RANKING REPUBLICAN ON THE
BUDGET COMMITTEE AND WRESTLING
WITH THESE DIFFICULT ISSUES -- I
KNOW SENATOR CARDIN IS A MEMBER
OF THE COMMITTEE -- WE TRIED TO
FIGURE OUT WHAT THIS MEANS AND
HOW MUCH MONEY THIS SPENDING
WILL BE, BUT THE BILL THAT WAS
TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS MONDAY
AFTERNOON DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY
FISCAL TABLES.
COSTS FOR ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS,
HOW THOSE PROVISIONS WILL BE
PAID FOR AND WHEN THE PAY-FOR
WILL OCCUR, OR EVEN AN OVERALL
PRICE TAG FOR THE BILL.
SO HOW CAN THE PRESIDENT CALL ON
CONGRESS TO -- QUOTE -- "PASS
THIS BILL IMMEDIATELY WHEN NO
ONE EVEN KNOWS HOW MUCH IT WILL
COST, WHERE THE MONEY IS COMING
FROM?
I SENT A LETTER TO THE
PRESIDENT'S DIRECTOR OF THE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
JACK LEW, ASKING THAT THIS
INFORMATION BE PROVIDED TO THE
CONGRESS AT ONCE, BUT SO FAR
WE'VE HAD NO RESPONSE.
PART OF THE REASON WE NEED THIS
INFORMATION IS THAT THE TOTAL
COST OF THE PRESIDENT'S BILL MAY
BE MUCH HIGHER THAN ADVERTISED.
THAT'S BEEN THE PATTERN AROUND
NO ONE SHOULD BE SURPRISED.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID HIS PLAN
WOULD BE PAID FOR, HE DID NOT
SPECIFY IF HE MEANT THE TOTAL
COST TO INCLUDE INCREASED
INTEREST RESULTING FROM THE
BORROWED MONEY TO BE SPENT
IMMEDIATELY OR JUST THE COST OF
THE JOBS PROVISION ALONE,
DOOR.
DEPENDING ON WHEN THE MONEY IS
SPENT OUT AND WHEN IT IS PAID
BACK, ASSUMING IT IS EVER PAID
BACK, INTEREST COSTS RESULTING
FROM JUST THIS BILL'S BORROWING
COULD TOP $100 BILLION.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE INTEREST ON
THE MONEY OVER THE TEN-YEAR
WINDOW, THE TEN-YEAR BUDGET
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU SPEND
$450 BILLION NOW, WE PAY
INTEREST ON THAT MONEY.
IT'S BORROWED MONEY.
PEOPLE LOAN US THE MONEY, WE PAY
INTEREST RATES ARE LOW KNOW.
C.B.O. PROJECTS THEM TO GO UP,
OUR CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.
CERTAINLY THEY WILL.
TODAY.
BUT AT ANY RATE, YOU CAN SEE
EASILY THE INTEREST ON THIS
MONEY OVER TEN YEARS REACHING
$100 BILLION.
NOW, THE PROBLEM WITH LOOKING AT
IT AS A TEN-YEAR MATTER IS THAT
THE DEBT'S NOT GOING TO BE PAID
OFF PROBABLY IN TEN YEARS.
MOST OF THE PROGRAMS THAT WE,
DEBTS WE RUN UP WILL BE PART OF
OUR DEFICIT.
IF WE'RE GOING TO RAISE TAXES TO
FUND A NEW PROGRAM, MAYBE WE
OUGHT TO RAISE TAXES TO PAY OFF
THE DEBT WE'VE GOT INSTEAD OF
SPENDING IT ON A NEW PROGRAM.
THE DEBT THAT WE HAVE
DISTRIBUTES AMERICAN WEALTH TO
PEOPLE WHO HOLD OUR DEBT ALL
OVER THE WORLD.
SO IN MY LETTER TO O.M.B., I
REQUEST TABLES SHOWING A
YEAR-BY-YEAR TABLES FOR THIS
BILL'S BUDGETARY IMPACT,
INCLUDING PROJECTED CHANGES TO
THE DEFICIT FOR EACH OF THE NEXT
IN OTHER WORDS, HOW IT WILL PLAY
OUT.
WE SPEND $450 BILLION IN ONE,
TWO, THREE YEARS, HOW MUCH DOES
THAT RUN THE DEBT UP?
WHEN DOES THE REPAYMENT BEGIN?
AND HOW WILL IT BE PAID, AND AT
WHAT RATE?
AND IF THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO
ADVOCATE FOR A SHARP NEAR-TERM
INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT IN
EXCHANGE FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF
AN UNDEFINED ECONOMIC FUTURE FOR
THE POSSIBILITY OF A STIMULUS,
HE OUGHT TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT
CLEARLY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
I BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT ALSO
NEEDS TO BE HONEST IN ADMITTING
THAT THE BILL'S SHORT-TERM COSTS
WOULD WIPE OUT, OBLITERATE $7
BILLION IN SAVINGS NEXT YEAR,
RESULTING FROM THE DEBT LIMIT
IN OTHER WORDS, WE WENT THROUGH
THIS LONG, PAINFUL EXERCISE THAT
RESULTED IN AN AGREEMENT ON THE
11th HOUR AND THE 59th
MINUTE TO SAVE $900 BILLION AND
THEN HOPEFULLY FORM A COMMITTEE
THAT WOULD SAVE ANOTHER $1.1
BILLION -- EXCUSE ME TRILLION
DOLLARS -- A FRACTION OF THIS
$2.1 BILLION IN SAVINGS.
OF THE $13 TRILLION,
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
TELLS US WILL BE ADDED TO THE
DEBT IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS.
SO IT WAS SAVED, A LITTLE OVER
$2 TRILLION OVER TEN YEARS, AND
IT WOULD -- BUT AT THE SAME TIME
WE'RE RUNNING OVER $10 TRILLION
IN DEBT.
SO IT'S NOT A BIG ENOUGH STEP.
IT'S A STEP.
HERE'S PROGRESS.
I CERTAINLY RESPECT THAT, BUT IT
WASN'T MUCH.
TO SHOW YOU HOW SMALL IT IS,
NEXT YEAR WE ARE PROJECTED,
UNDER THAT AGREEMENT THAT
CONGRESS RATIFIED TO REDUCE
SPENDING $7 BILLION.
THAT'S ALL.
THAT'S ALL THAT WOULD BE
REDUCEED FROM THIS YEAR TO NEXT
YEAR IN ACTUAL SPENDING LEVELS.
SO I ASK MY COLLEAGUES: DON'T WE
NEED TO BE CAREFUL?
AFTER ALL THE EFFORT WE TOOK TO
ACHIEVE THAT MUCH SAVINGS,
SHOULDN'T WE THINK VERY, VERY
CAREFULLY ABOUT A NEW STIMULUS
PLAN THAT WOULD SPEND $450
SAVINGS?
I THINK WE SHOULD.
I THINK WE SHOULD.
BUT AT ANY RATE, WE DO NEED TO
KNOW PRECISELY HOW MUCH IT'S
GOING TO COST AND PRECISELY HOW
THE MONEY WOULD BE SPENT.
SO LET'S FLASHBACK TO FEBRUARY.
THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET DIRECTOR JACK LEW SAID
THIS -- QUOTE -- THIS WAS WHEN
THE PRESIDENT SUBMITTED HIS
BUDGET FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS.
IT WAS BROUGHT UP HERE ON THE
FLOOR OF THE SENATE.
IN FACT, I BROUGHT IT UP, AND IT
WAS VOTED DOWN 97-0.
BUT THIS IS WHAT MR. LEW SAID
ABOUT THAT BUDGET -- QUOTE --
"OUR BUDGET WILL GET US OVER THE
NEXT SEVERAL YEARS TO THE POINT
WHERE WE CAN LOOK THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE IN THE EYE AND SAY WE'RE
NOT ADDING TO THE DEBT ANYMORE.
WE'RE SPENDING MONEY WE HAVE
EACH YEAR.
AND THEN WE CAN WORK ON BRINGING
DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT.
" NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, WE ALL
KNOW THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF
POLITICAL LICENSE THAT PEOPLE
GET TO UTILIZE AROUND THE
POLITICAL WORLD.
FORGIVEN.
BUT LET ME TELL YOU, THIS IS THE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S
BUDGET THAT HE HAD JUST
SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS.
HE SAID IT WILL GET US TO THE
POINT OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL
YEARS TO WHERE WE CAN LOOK THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THE EYE AND
SAY THAT WE'RE NOT ADDING TO THE
DEBT ANY MORE.
WE'RE SPENDING MONEY THAT WE
HAVE EACH YEAR.
AND THEN WE CAN WORK ON BRINGING
DOWN OUR NATIONAL DEBT.
CLOSE QUOTE.
WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
SCORED THIS BUDGETARY PLAN.
AND THIS IS WHAT THEY CONCLUDED,
THAT OVER A TEN-YEAR PERIOD
THERE WOULD BE HUGE DEFICITS
EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
AND IN ABOUT YEAR SIX OR SEVEN
THE LOWEST DEFICIT WOULD OCCUR.
$750 BILLION WOULD BE THE LOWEST
ANNUAL DEFICIT THAT WOULD OCCUR.
AND BY THE TENTH YEAR IT WOULD
BE BACK UP TO $1 TRILLION.
PRESIDENT BUSH'S LARGEST DEFICIT
HE EVER HAD WAS $450 BILLION.
HE WAS CRITICIZED FOR THAT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE
LOWEST -- AND HE SAYS THIS IS
GOING TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT AND
WOULDN'T BE ADDING MORE TO THE
DEBT IF WE PASSED HIS BUDGET
WHEN HIS BUDGET SPENT MORE,
TAXED MORE AND RAN UP MORE DEBT,
THE MOST IRRESPONSIBLE BUDGET, I
BELIEVE, EVER SUBMITTED TO TO THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
AT A TIME OF NATIONAL CRISIS,
WHEN ALL EXPERTS ARE TELLING US
THE GREATEST THREAT TO OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY IS OUR DEBT.
SO FORGIVE ME IF I WANT TO SEE
THE FINE PRINT ON THIS
THE ADMINISTRATION WILL TELL YOU
THAT, AND THE PRESIDENT SAID
VERY SIMILAR THINGS.
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF SAID VERY
SIMILAR THINGS.
WE WOULD NOT BE ADDING MORE TO
THE DEBT.
SO, WE MAY HAVE IN CONGRESS
PASSED -- RAISED THE LEGAL DEBT
LIMIT.
I DID NOT VOTE FOR THAT
PARTICULAR BILL.
BUT WE HAVE BREACHED, I'M
AFRAID, OUR ECONOMIC DEBT LIMIT.
AMERICA'S $14.5 TRILLION GROSS
DEBT IS NOW 100% OF OUR G.D.P.,
OUR ECONOMY.
EXPERTS TELL US WE HAVE ALREADY
CROSSED A DANGEROUS THRESHOLD.
OUR DEBT IS PULLING DOWN GROWTH
AND PUTTING A DAMPER ON JOB
CREATION RIGHT NOW.
SO WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES,
MR. PRESIDENT, CAN WE CONTINUE
TO BORROW, RUNNING UP EVEN MORE
DEBT, IN THE HOPE THAT WE CAN
SPEND IT TODAY IN A SUGAR-HIGH
TYPE STIMULUS CREATE JOBS IN THE
SHORT RUN.
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
PACKAGE TWO YEARS AGO.
IT'S COME NOWHERE NEAR ACHIEVING
WHAT WAS PROMISED FOR IT.
AND THEY SAID, OKAY, IF YOU
SPEND $825 BILLION NOW, YOU'LL
GET SOME SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC
BUT SCORED OVER A DECADE, YOU'D
HAVE AN ECONOMIC DECLINE.
THE NET GROWTH OF THE UNITED
STATES WOULD BE LESS OVER TEN
YEARS THAN IF YOU DIDN'T PASS A
STIMULUS PACKAGE AT ALL.
AND WHEN YOU GET UP TO 100% OF
G.D.P., I SUBMIT IT'S EVEN MORE
DEBT.
SO THIS IS A DILEMMA.
WE'RE IN A FIX.
THE ECONOMY IS NOT GROWING THE
WAY WE'D LIKE IT TO GROW.
EXPERTS WERE PROJECTING, C.B.O.
WAS PROJECTING IN JANUARY -- IN
JANUARY OF THIS YEAR THEY WERE
PROJECTING THAT ECONOMIC GROWTH
FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS WOULD
BE ABOUT 2.9%.
WE WERE HOPING THAT WOULD BE
BUT WHAT HAPPENED?
THE FIRST QUARTER OF THIS FISCAL
YEAR .4%.
NOT 2%.
NOT 2.9%.
AND THE SECOND QUARTER WAS
EXTREMELY LOW ALSO.
WE'VE AVERAGED ABOUT 1% GROWTH
THE FIRST HALF OF THIS YEAR.
SO, WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING TO
HELP THIS ECONOMY GROW.
I SUBMIT WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING
WE CAN THAT WOULD HELP OUR
ECONOMY GROW NOW, THAT DOES NOT
RUN UP THE DEBT.
WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE THINGS?
PRODUCING MORE ENERGY AT HOME.
CREATING JOBS HERE.
PUMPING MORE ENERGY SUPPLY WHICH
ENERGY.
SO IF YOU BRING DOWN THE COST OF
ENERGY, CREATE JOBS, CREATE TAX
THAT WAY.
WE SHOULD ELIMINATE EVERY
REGULATION THAT'S NOT BENEFICIAL
TO THIS ECONOMY.
AND THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM.
SOME REGULATIONS ARE GOOD.
MANY OF THEM JUST ADD COSTS TO
THE ENTIRE ECONOMY FOR LITTLE OR
NO BENEFIT.
AND WE NEED TO HAVE THE KIND OF
TAX REFORM OF A PERMANENT NATURE
THAT CREATES CONFIDENCE IN OUR
ECONOMY, A KIND OF TAX REFORM
THAT ADVANCES ECONOMIC GROWTH
RATHER THAN JUST INCREASING
TAXES TO GIVE WASHINGTON MORE
SO THOSE ARE MY SUGGESTIONS
ABOUT HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE'RE GOING
TO LOOK AT THIS PROPOSAL.
WE CERTAINLY ARE WORRIED ABOUT
THE STATUS OF THE ECONOMY TODAY.
WE ARE DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED IN
THE JOB NUMBERS THAT CONTINUE TO
AND HOPEFULLY, WE'LL FIND THE
KEY TO CHANGING THAT.
BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, THE ECONOMY
WILL COME BACK AND JOBS WILL
COME BACK WHEN GROWTH OCCURS.
AND GROWTH WILL OCCUR NOT IN THE
PUBLIC SECTOR BUT IN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR, AND WE NEED TO ASK
OURSELVES WHAT IT IS WE CAN DO
TO CREATE A BETTER CLIMATE FOR
GROWTH AND JOB CREATION.
WE NEED TO BE RIGOROUS IN
ANALYZING THE PRESIDENT'S
PROPOSAL, TO LOOK AT THE DETAILS
OF IT, HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO
COST AND HOW THEY PLAN TO PAY IT
I THINK AT A VERY MINIMUM, WE'RE
ENTITLED TO THAT.
I THANK THE CHAIR AND WOULD
YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE
MAJORITY LEADER.
ASSISTANT MAJORITY LEADER.
WE SEE THE WORLD
DIFFERENTLY BUT WE ACKNOWLEDGE
WE'RE IN AN ECONOMIC SITUATION
WHERE ACTION IS THE ONLY
DOING NOTHING IS UNACCEPTABLE.
WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA CAME TO
SPEAK TO US IN A JOINT SESSION
OF CONGRESS LAST WEEK, THAT'S
WHAT HE TOLD US.
HE BASICALLY SAID LET'S ROLL UP
OUR SLEEVES, WORK TOGETHER, BOTH
POLITICAL PARTIES IN CONGRESS
FOR A CHANGE, AND DO SOMETHING
ABOUT THIS ECONOMY.
14 MILLION AMERICANS OUT OF WORK
S. THE REPORT NOW FROM THE JOINT
COMMITTEE COMMITTEE AND OTHERS
THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF
POVERTY IN DECADES, THE PROBLEMS
THAT WORKING FAMILIES ARE
HAVING, WEEK TO WEEK, MONTH TO
MONTH AND YEAR TO YEAR, FALLING
BEHIND DESPITE ALL THEIR HARD
WORK.
THEIR WAGES AREN'T RISING TO
KEEP UP WITH THE COST OF LIVING.
PAYCHECK.
A SURVEY TAKEN RECENTLY ACROSS
AMERICA ASKING WORKING FAMILIES
THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: COULD
YOU COME UP WITH $2,000 IN 30
DAYS IF YOU HAD TO, EITHER OUT
OF SAVINGS OR BORROW IT?
53% OF WORKING FAMILIES SAID YES
AND 47% SAID NO.
THAT'S HOW CLOSE TO THE EDGE
ALMOST HALF OF WORKING FAMILIES
ARE LIVING.
A $2,000 MEDICAL BILL IN AN
EMERGENCY ROOM IS ALMOST NOTHING
THESE DAYS.
IT'S FOR A MINOR INJURY.
AND THESE FAMILIES COULD NOT
COME UP WITH IT.
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE FACING IT.
AND THAT'S WHY THE PRESIDENT
SAID LET US FOCUS ON DOING
THINGS THAT WILL HELP THESE
FAMILIES AND EQUALLY, IF NOT
MORE IMPORTANT, HELP SMALL
BUSINESSES CREATE JOBS.
THERE'S
THERE IS NO ARGUMENT HERE ABOUT
CREATING AN ARMY OF GOVERNMENT
JOBS.
THAT'S NOT EVEN ON THE TABLE.
THE PRESIDENT'S NOT PROPOSING
HERE'S WHAT HE SAID.
LET'S GIVE A TAX CUT, A PAYROLL
TAX CUT TO WORKING INDIVIDUALS
SO THEY HAVE MORE TAKE-HOME PAY.
I TOOK A LOOK AT WHAT IT WOULD
MEAN IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.
IT WOULD MEAN FOR THE AVERAGE
INCOME, WHICH IS $53,000 A YEAR,
THAT FAMILY WOULD GET $1,400 IN
TAX CUTS.
$120 A MONTH.
I THINK IT'S WORTH SOMETHING TO
WORKING FAMILIES TO HAVE THAT
MUCH MORE IN THEIR POCKET, TO
MEET THE NEEDS OF THEIR FAMILY
AND PERHAPS MAKE SOME CRITICAL
PURCHASES FOR THEIR CHILDREN,
MIGHT BE.
THAT IS A TAX CUT THE PRESIDENT
HAS PROPOSED.
HE ALSO PROPOSES A TAX CUT FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES IF THEY WILL
HIRE UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE.
A TAX CREDIT OF UP TO $4,000 TO
HIRE THESE FOLKS.
TAKE THEM OFF THE UNEMPLOYED
ROLLS AND PUT THEM TO WORK.
I WENT TO SEVERAL JOB CENTERS,
MR. PRESIDENT, DURING THE AUGUST
RECESS, ONE IN McHENRY,
ILLINOIS, ONE IN ELGIN,
ILLINOIS, AND I SPENT THE BETTER
PART OF THE DAY SITTING WITH
UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE, TALKING TO
YOU OUGHT TO GO THERE.
IF YOU THINK THE UNEMPLOYED OF
AMERICA, THE 14 MILLION THAT WE
HEAR THE STATISTICS ON ARE
LIVING THE LIFE OF LUXURY ON
THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS,
THEY'RE NOT.
MOST OF THEM ARE STRUGGLING TO
SURVIVE, AND MANY OF THEM
DESPERATELY COME EACH DAY TO A
JOB CENTER TO BRUSH UP THEIR
RESUME, TO FIND OUT THE LATEST
PEOPLE ASKING FOR NEW WORKERS
AND PUT IN NEW APPLICATIONS DAY
AFTER DAY AFTER DAY, AND MANY OF
THEM DISCOURAGED AFTER
SUBMITTING HUNDREDS OF
APPLICATIONS WITH NO RESPONSE.
SOME GO BACK TO SCHOOL.
I MET A COUPLE THAT REALLY MADE
THE RIGHT LIFE CHOICE, GOING
BACK TO TAKE COARSES AT
COMMUNITY COLLEGES WHERE THEY
COULD AFFORD IT OR JOB TRAINING
CENTERS WHERE THERE WOULD BE NO
CHARGE TO THEM, PICK UP A NEW
SKILL IN AN AREA WHERE YOU CAN
GET A JOB, THAT IS THE REALITY.
AND THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO
CREATE TAX INCENTIVES FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES TO HIRE THOSE PEOPLE.
NOW, USUALLY, THE REPUBLICANS
WHO COME TO THE FLOOR ARE
APPLAUDING TAX CUTS.
MY EXPERIENCE IS THEY ARE FOR
TAX CUTS IN TIMES GOOD AND BAD,
BUT THIS TIME THEY ARE AGAINST
THESE TAX CUTS.
WELL, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THESE TAX CUTS AND THE
ONES THAT THE REPUBLICANS
HISTORICALLY SUPPORT?
THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENCES.
THE PRESIDENT'S TAX CUTS ARE
FOCUSED ON MIDDLE-INCOME
FAMILIES, NOT THE WEALTHIEST,
AND THEY ARE THE PRESIDENT'S TAX
CUTS.
THOSE ARE THE TWO DIFFERENCES.
I HOPE THAT SOME ON THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE WILL REFLECT ON
THE FACT, AS THE PRESIDENT SAID,
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT
GOING TO REWARD US FOR OUR
CAMPAIGN RHETORIC IF THIS
ECONOMY DOESN'T TURN AROUND.
THEY WANT US TO WORK TOGETHER TO
SOLVE THE PROBLEMS FACING OUR
THEY WANT TAX CUTS FOR WORKING
FAMILIES.
THEY WANT SMALL BUSINESSES TO
HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO HIRE
PEOPLE.
THEY WANT US TO FOCUS ON
CREATING GOOD-PAYING JOBS RIGHT
HERE AT HOME.
WHAT KIND OF JOBS?
BUILDING AMERICA.
AS THE PRESIDENT SAID, IF WE'RE
GOING TO SUCCEED IN THIS WORLD,
WE NEED TO OUTEDUCATE OUR
COMPETITORS, OUTINNOVATE OUR
COMPETITORS AND OUTBUILD THEM.
I WENT TO CHINA OVER EASTER.
IT IS INCREDIBLE WHAT'S
HAPPENING IN THAT COUNTRY.
THEY ARE BUILDING IN EVERY
DIRECTION.
BUILDING CRANES AND CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITY EVERYWHERE.
THEY ARE BUILDING THE
INFRASTRUCTURE IN CHINA TO
BECOME THE NUMBER-ONE ECONOMIC
POWER IN THE WORLD IN THE 21st
CENTURY.
AND WHAT ARE WE DOING?
WE'RE HEARING SPEECH AFTER
SPEECH SAYING BECAUSE OF THE
DEFICIT, WE CANNOT INVEST IN
AMERICA, WE CANNOT INVEST IN
EDUCATION, SOME SAY.
WE CAN'T INVEST IN RESEARCH,
THEY ARGUE.
WE CAN'T INVEST ON BUILDING
AMERICA.
I THINK THEY'RE WRONG.
THE DEFICIT IS A SERIOUS
CHALLENGE, BUT EVEN THE
BOWLES-SIMPSON COMMISSION WHICH
I SERVED ON AND VOTED FOR SAID
WHEN YOU GET SERIOUS ABOUT
CUTTING SPENDING, DO IT WHEN
THIS RECESSION IS BEHIND YOU.
THEY KNOW WE KNOW YOU CAN'T
BALANCE THE BUDGET WITH
WORK.
AND LET ME SAY A WORD ABOUT THE
SAFETY NET IN AMERICA.
I MADE A VISIT IN CHAMPAIGN,
OPERATION.
THEY DISTRIBUTE FOOD TO PANTRIES
AND SOUP KITCHENS ALL AROUND
CENTRAL ILLINOIS.
UNFORTUNATELY, THEIR BUSINESS
HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER.
MORE AND MORE FAMILIES ARE
SHOWING UP IN THESE PLACES FOR A
HELPING HAND.
THEY'RE DOING.
THEY ARE GETTING A LOT OF HELP
FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
DONATE FOOD THAT'S NEAR
EXPIRATION, FOR EXAMPLE, AND A
LOT OF CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
CHURCHES AND CHARITABLE
INDIVIDUALS.
IT'S REALLY HEART WARMING TO SEE
IT.
AS I WENT TO SEE THIS PLACE,
THERE WAS A YOUNG WOMAN THERE.
WELL-DRESSED WOMAN.
I ASSUMED HEE WORKED FOR THIS
THEN SHE SAID TO ME SHE HAD A
JOB AT A LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
AS A TEACHER'S AIDE.
I WAS A LITTLE PUZZLED AS TO
WHETHER SHE WAS ON THE BOARD OF
WAS.
SHE CAME THERE TO TELL ME THAT
AS A SINGLE MOM WITH TWO LITTLE
KIDS, EVEN WITH A JOB IN THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT, WHICH SHE WAS
HAPPY TO HAVE, SHE STILL NEEDED
FOOD STAMPS TO PUT FOOD ON THE
TABLE EVERY DAY FOR HER KIDS.
I DON'T THINK AMERICANS, THOSE
OF US LUCKY ENOUGH TO NEVER HAVE
TO WORRY ABOUT THE NEXT MEAL,
KNOW WHAT FAMILIES ARE GOING
THROUGH.
WORKING FAMILIES, STRUGGLING
WITH LOW INCOME, TRYING TO KEEP
THEIR KIDS WELL FED AND TO DO
WHAT EVERY PARENT WANTS TO DO.
MORE AND MORE, THEY ARE GOING TO
SOUP KITCHENS VERY QUIETLY
BECAUSE THAT'S A MEAL THEY DON'T
HAVE TO PAY FOR.
THEY'RE GOING TO THE PANTRIES TO
PICK UP THE GROCERIES.
I'VE SEEN THEM IN ONE OF THE
NICEST AND MOST PROSPEROUS
COUNTIES IN MY STATE, DUPAGE
COUNTY, I WENT TO THE PANTRIES
THERE AND SAW PEOPLE COMING
THROUGH THE DOOR.
YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PICK
THEM OUT, BUT THEY ARE WORKING
HAND.
THAT'S THE REALITY AND THAT'S
WHY THE SAFETY NET IS SO
I'M TROUBLED THAT SO MANY PEOPLE
TODAY ARE ON FOOD STAMPS.
I'M NOT TROUBLED BECAUSE THEY
TO BE ON FOOD STAMPS.
I HEAR SOME OF THE CRITICS COME
TO THE FLOOR AND ARGUE, YOU
KNOW, THERE ARE JUST TOO DARNED
MANY PEOPLE ON FOOD STAMPS,
THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG HERE.
WELL, WHAT'S WRONG IS NOT FOOD
WHAT'S WRONG IS HUNGER AND LOW
INCOME AND WORKING FAMILIES
STRUGGLING TO GET BY PATCH TO
PAYCHECK.
THAT'S WHAT'S WRONG.
AND THE NUMBERS OF AMERICANS NOW
QUALIFIED FOR THIS FOOD STAMP
ASSISTANCE IS EVEN GOING UP
AMONG THOSE WHO ARE EMPLOYED,
LIKE THE LADY I MET IN
THAT'S A REALITY.
TOO.
AS MORE AND MORE PEOPLE LOSE
THEIR JOBS, THEY LOSE THEIR
WHEN I SIT DOWN WITH THE
UNEMPLOYED, THAT'S ONE OF THE
FIRST ITEMS THAT COMES UP,
BECAUSE ONCE YOU HAVE LOST THAT
HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM THAT
YOUR EMPLOYER HELPS YOU PAY,
MOST FOLKS CAN'T AFFORD IT.
IT'S JUST WAY BEYOND THEM.
SO THEY'RE OUT THERE WITHOUT
INSURANCE, THEY'RE VULNERABLE.
SOME OF THEM HAVE SICK KIDS,
CHRONICALLY ILL CHILDREN, AND
THEY WORRY ABOUT IT.
THEY ARE GOING TO THE FREE
WE'RE SEEING MORE AND MORE
WORKING FAMILIES SHOWING UP AT
FREE CLINICS ACROSS AMERICA.
THAT'S THE REALITY OF THIS
ECONOMY, TOO.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CUTTING
SPENDING ON MEDICAID, KEEP IN
MIND WHO RECEIVES MEDICAID
PAYMENTS IN AMERICA.
IN MY STATE OF ILLINOIS, 36% OF
THE CHILDREN, 36% OF ILLINOIS
INSURANCE.
WHEN IT COMES TO BIRTHS IN THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS, 52% OF ALL
BIRTHS IN ILLINOIS ARE PAID FOR
BY MEDICAID, BUT THE BIGGEST
SINGLE EXPENSE IN MEDICAID,
NEITHER ONE OF THOSE.
20% OF THE MEDICAID RECIPIENTS
IN MY STATE ACCOUNT FOR 60% OF
THE COSTS OF THE PROGRAM, THE
ELDERLY, PARENTS, GRANDPARENTS,
GREAT GRANDPARENTS, IN NURSING
HOMES AND CONVALESCENCE CENTERS,
ON MEDICARE AND BROKE.
STAY IN THERE BECAUSE MEDICAID
STEPS IN AND HELPS THEM KEEP
THINGS TOGETHER.
THEY HAVE AT LEAST SOME CARE AND
SOME ATTENTION IN THE LATE YEARS
OF THEIR LIFE.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CUTTING
SPENDING IN MEDICAID, WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT HURTING THE MOST
VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN AMERICA.
CHILDREN, LIKE THE KIDS OF THAT
SINGLE MOM THAT I MET, THOSE WHO
NEED PRENATAL CARE SO THEIR
BABIES WILL BE HEALTHY, AND OF
COURSE THE ELDERLY WHO ARE STUCK
IN THAT POSITION.
THE SAME THING IS TRUE WITH
I UNDERSTAND MEDICARE COSTS ARE
GOING UP DRAMATICALLY.
I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY AND
MEDICARE IS GOING TO RISE AS
BABY BOOMERS REACH THAT AGE, BUT
WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE THAT AT THE
END OF THE DAY, WE PROTECT THE
BASIC PREMIUMS AND BENEFITS THAT
MEDICARE.
FOR A LOT OF AMERICANS AND A LOT
OF SENIORS, IT'S THEIR ONLY
HEALTH INSURANCE.
IT'S REALLY WHAT KEEPS THEM
INDEPENDENT AND STRONG.
AND WE CAN'T COMPROMISE THAT
BASIC PROTECTION BY PRIVATIZING
MEDICARE OR RAISING THE COST OF
MEDICARE BEYOND THE REACH OF
SENIOR CITIZENS.
FINALLY, WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL
SECURITY, LET ME JUST SAY THAT
THIS IS A PROGRAM WHICH MEANS A
LOT.
FOR 70% OF SOCIAL SECURITY
RECIPIENTS, IT'S A MAJORITY OF
THEIR RETIREMENT.
FOR 25% OF SOCIAL SECURITY
RECIPIENTS, IT'S ALL THEY GET.
THAT'S IT.
SO GUARDING SOCIAL SECURITY AND
PROTECTING ITS FUTURE IS
IMPORTANT FOR OUR PARENTS AND
GRANDPARENTS.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR COUNTRY
AND FOR ITS FUTURE AS WELL.
THE PRESIDENT CAME FORWARD AND
HE SAID THIS IS MY JOBS BILL,
THIS IS WHAT I THINK WILL HELP
MOVE AMERICA FORWARD, PUT MORE
SPENDING POWER IN THE HANDS OF
WORKING FAMILIES, CREATE
INCENTIVES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
TO HIRE PEOPLE, FOCUS ON PUTTING
FIREFIGHTERS, COPS AND TEACHERS
BACK TO WORK.
THAT'S A PRIORITY IN OUR COUNTRY
FOR SURE, AND INVESTING IN
BUILDING IN AMERICA.
ONE OF THE FEW LINES THE
PRESIDENT HAD THAT GOT
BIPARTISAN STANDING OVATION --
THERE WEREN'T MANY LAST
THURSDAY -- WAS WHEN HE SAID
IT'S AN EMBARRASSMENT THAT 10%
UNEMPLOYED.
WORK.
THAT'S PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S
NOW, WHEN I LISTENED TO THE
SENATOR FROM ALABAMA, HE DOESN'T
LIKE THE WAY THE PRESIDENT PAYS
FOR THE PLAN, BUT HE DOES PAY
FOR IT.
IT DOESN'T ADD TO OUR DEFICIT.
HOW DOES HE PAY FOR IT?
ONE THING HE DOES IS TO
DRAMATICALLY REDUCE THE FEDERAL
SUBSIDY TO OIL AND GAS
FILLED UP YOUR TANK LATELY?
TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE
CHARGING AT THE PUMP.
ILLINOIS AND MOST PLACES, IT'S
OVER FOUR BUCKS.
AND THAT IS TRANSLATING INTO THE
HIGHEST REPORTED PROFITS IN THE
HISTORY OF AMERICAN BUSINESS.
OIL COMPANIES HAVE NEVER, EVER
HAD IT SO GOOD.
AND PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SAID --
AND I AGREE WITH HIM -- IF THERE
WAS EVER A MOMENT IN TIME WHEN
THE FEDERAL SUBSIDIES TO THESE
OIL COMPANIES SHOULD COME TO AN
END, THIS IS IT, AND THE MONEY
SAVED SHOULD GO TO SMALL
BUSINESSES AND FAMILIES ACROSS
AMERICA IN THIS DIFFICULT
ECONOMY.
THE PRESIDENT ALSO BELIEVES, AND
I AGREE WITH HIM, THE WEALTHIEST
AMONG US, THOSE WHO ARE MOST
COMFORTABLE SHOULD BE ASKED TO
SHARE IN THE SACRIFICE.
NOW, THERE ARE SOME ON THE OTHER
SIDE WHO WOULD NOT ACCEPT ONE
PENNY MORE IN TAXES ON THE
WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN AMERICA.
I DON'T GET IT.
AS I TRAVEL AROUND ILLINOIS, A
LOT OF FAMILIES ARE SACRIFICING
IN THIS TOUGH ECONOMY.
THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO.
IT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY ARE GOING
TO MAKE IT.
AND THEY KNOW THAT SOME OF THE
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS WHICH HAVE
BEEN AROUND IN THE PAST AREN'T
GOING TO BE THERE IN THE FUTURE
OR MAYBE NOT AS GENEROUS.
IF WORKING FAMILIES AND
MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES ACROSS
AMERICA ACCEPT THAT REALITY, WHY
CAN'T THE WEALTHIEST FAMILIES IN
AMERICA ACCEPT IT, TOO?
HONESTLY, I THINK THEY CAN.
BY AND LARGE, THE PEOPLE I KNOW
WHO ARE BLESSED WITH A LOT OF
WEALTH AND A PRETTY COMFORTABLE
LIFE HAVE SAID TO ME, SENATOR, I
DON'T NEED ALL THIS.
SECURITY PAYMENT.
CAN I GET BY WITHOUT IT.
I DON'T MIND PAYING A LITTLE
MORE IN TAXES.
THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE I RUN INTO.
BUT YOU HEAR FROM THE OTHER SIDE
THAT IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.
SOME OF THEM HAVE SAID THE
PRESIDENT'S PLAN HAS FALLEN FLAT
ON ITS FACE BECAUSE IT TAXES THE
WEALTHY IN AMERICA.
I THINK THE WEALTHY SHOULD PAY
THEIR FAIR SHARE.
I THINK THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN IS
US FORWARD.
SO FOR THOSE WHO ARE CRITICAL OF
IT, GIVE ME YOUR ALTERNATIVE.
I WROTE DOWN HERE WHAT THE
SENATOR FROM ALABAMA SUGGESTED.
HE WANTS MORE ENERGY PRODUCED
HERE AT HOME.
I'M FOR THAT.
I THINK WE OUGHT TO GO TO PLACES
WHERE IT'S ENVIRONMENTALLY
RESPONSIBLE AND PRODUCE MORE
ENERGY HERE IN THE UNITED
STATES, BUT I WILL SAY TWO
THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND.
NUMBER ONE, ALL OF THE KNOWN OIL
AND GAS RESERVES IN THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA THAT WE COULD
REACH ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE
EQUALS 3% OF THE KNOWN OIL AND
GAS RESERVES IN THE WORLD.
EACH YEAR, THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA CONSUMES 25% OF OIL AND
GAS CONSUMED IN THE WORLD.
WE CANNOT DRILL OUR WAY INTO
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.
WE CAN EXPAND THE BASE, DO IT IN
AN ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE
WAY, PERHAPS FIND BETTER
SOURCES, NEWER SOURCES FOR
THINGS LIKE NATURAL GAS, BUT
THIS IS NOT THE ANSWER TO OUR
PRAYERS.
AND SECONDLY, MOVING TOWARD
ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS NOT ONLY
GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, IT'S
GOOD FOR THE BOTTOM LINE FOR A
FAMILY AND FOR A BUSINESS.
PROMOTING EFFICIENCY.
MY WIFE AND I TAKE A LITTLE
PRIDE IN THE FACT THAT WE OWN A
CAR, A FORD FUSION, HYBRID, AND
WE WERE KIND OF PATTING
OURSELVES ON THE BACK A LITTLE
BIT AS WE CAME BACK FROM
VACATION IN MICHIGAN AND WE WERE
GETTING 36 MILES A GALLON.
I FELT PRETTY GOOD ABOUT IT.
I WAS BRAGGING TO MY FRIENDS
ABOUT IT.
NOW I'M BRAGGING ON THE SENATE
WE CAN CREATE MORE
FUEL-EFFICIENT VEHICLES.
WE DIDN'T COMPROMISE ANYTHING,
AND WE BOUGHT AMERICA.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO
ENCOURAGE IN THIS COUNTRY.
CARS AND CREATING JOBS IN THIS
COUNTRY, REDUCING THE NEED FOR
OVERSEAS AND REDUCING THE
POLLUTION THAT UNFORTUNATELY
HINDERS OUR ENVIRONMENT AND OUR
I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING.
SO ON THE SENATOR'S FIRST POINT,
SURE, MORE ENERGY AT HOME BUT
PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE.
THAT ISN'T THE ANSWER TO
AMERICA'S ECONOMIC NEEDS.
THE SECOND POINT HE SAYS IS
ELIMINATE CERTAIN REGULATIONS.
THAT COULD BE TRUE.
THERE ARE REGULATIONS NOW THAT
DON'T MAKE ANY SEFNLTS GET RID
OF THEM.
I'M NOT SURE THIS IS A BIG BALL
AND CHAIN BEING DRAGGED AROUND
BY OUR ECONOMY, BUT THERE'S NO
SENSE IN WASTING TIME OR MONEY
ON REGULATIONS THAT REALLY DON'T
SERVE A GOOD PUBLIC PURPOSE MP
THE FINAL POINT HE SAID, I
REFORM.
WE LOSE $1.2 TRILLION A YEAR TO
THE TAX CODE.
CREDITS AND DEDUCTIONS AND
EXCLUSIONS AND SPECIAL FAVORS
WRITTEN IN THE TAX CODE FOR
BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS.
THAT'S GOT TO COME TO AN END P.
THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO RAISE
REVENUE AND MAYBE EVEN REDUCE
PROCESS.
THAT'S WHAT BOWLES-SIMPSON SAID.
EVEN MY FRIEND FROM ALABAMA WHO
SPOKE EARLIER, EVEN HE AND I CAN
FIND SOME COMMON GROUND.
I HOPE HE'LL AGREE WITH ME AND
THE PRESIDENT.
DOING NOTHING IS UNACCEPTABLE.
THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID NO MORE
GAMES, NO MORE DELAY, NO MORE
POLITICS.
THAT'S THE MESSAGE I GOT IN
AUGUST AS I RETURNED TO
ILLINOIS.
IT IS A MESSAGE I HOPE MY
COLLEAGUES SHARE AS WELL.
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
AND I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A
QUORUM.
THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. PRESIDENT, I
VITIATED.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, THE SENATOR IS
RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I COME TO THE FLOOR, LIKE I DO
THE HEALTH CARE LAW.
I DO THAT AS A PHYSICIAN,
SOMEONE WHO HAS PRACTICED
MEDICINE FOR A QUARTER OF A
FAMILIES.
I COME BECAUSE I HAVE GREAT
LAW.
YOU KNOW, HISTORY PROVES THAT
LANDMARK PIECES OF LEGISLATION,
WRITTEN IN CONGRESS, OFTEN
CONTAIN DRAFTING ERRORS AT ONE
STAGE OR ANOTHER DURING THE
BILL'S DEVELOPMENT.
AND THIS IS ONE OF THE MAIN
REASONS THAT MOST LANDMARK BILLS
ARE WRITTEN AND NEGOTIATED IN AN
OPEN AND A TRANSPARENT MANNER.
WRITING AND NEGOTIATING BILLS
IS, IN A WAY, HELPS MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS MINIMIZE MISSTARKS
HELPS UNCOVER ANY UNINTENTIONAL
CONSEQUENCES AND HELPS FIX
PROBLEMS.
THIS IS DONE THROUGH RIGOROUS
COMMITTEE AND FLOOR COMMITTEE AS
WELL AS HOUSE-SENATE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEES AS THE BILLS GO
THROUGH THE PROCESS.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, DOING
SOMETHING IN AN OPEN AND
TRANSPARENT MANNER GIVES THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE FOLKS AT
HOME, AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ A
BILL, TO STUDY IT, TO THINK
ABOUT IT, TO DISCUSS IT DURING
TOWN HALL MEETINGS WITH THEIR
MEMBERS, AND TO ASK QUESTIONS
AND WEIGH IN.
WELL, UNFORTUNATELY,
MR. PRESIDENT, WE ALL KNEE KNOW THAT
THE LARGEST HEALTH CARE LAW EVER
ENACTED DIDN'T UNDERGO AN OPEN
OR TRANSPARENT OR BIPARTISAN
PROCESS.
PRESIDENT OBAMA PROMISED THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT THEY COULD
WATCH THE DISCUSSIONS AND
WRITING PROCESS ON C-SPAN.
INSTEAD, THE PRESIDENT AND
DEMOCRATIC LEADERS IN BOTH THE
HOUSE AND SENATE SEALED
THEMSELVES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
THEIR STRATEGY: PASS SWEEPING
HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION BASED ON
STEALTH AND SPEED.
USE SOUND BITES TO SELL AMERICA
ABOUT EXPANDING COVERAGE, ABOUT
CUTTING COSTS, ABOUT IMPROVING
QUALITY.
AND THEN OFFER VERY FEW DETAILS
EXPLAINING EXACTLY HOW THE BILL
WOULD IMPACT INDIVIDUAL
AMERICANS NOR WHAT IT WOULD COST
THE COUNTRY.
WELL, WHILE THIS ENTIRE STRATEGY
WAS BEING PLAYED OUT, THE
PRESIDENT AND WASHINGTON
DEMOCRATS WERE WRITING THE
WHY?
WELL, TO LIMIT THE TIME THAT THE
BILLS COULD BE READ AND REVIEWED
BY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
SOME IN WASHINGTON THOUGHT THAT
RUSHING A HEALTH CARE BILL INTO
LAW BEFORE AMERICA COULD READ IT
WAS THE PERFECT WAY TO AVOID
PUBLIC DEBATE AND PUBLIC
QUESTIONING.
MANY OF US RECALL WHEN FORMER
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY
PELOSI INFAMOUSLY SAID THAT
FIRST YOU HAVE TO PASS THE BILL
TO FIND OUT WHAT'S IN IT.
WELL, THE PRESIDENT PASSED HIS
HEALTH CARE LAW, AND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE CONTINUE ON A
DAILY BASIS TO FIND OUT WHAT'S
IN IT.
AND THEY DON'T LIKE IT.
AND IT'S EASY TO UNDERSTAND WHY.
AS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE HAD
A CHANCE TO READ THE DETAILS,
THEY STARTED REQUESTING MORE
QUESTIONS.
THE NUMBERS WEREN'T ADDING UP.
HEALTH CARE COSTS WERE GOING UP
EVEN THOUGH THE PRESIDENT
PROMISED THAT HEALTH CARE COSTS
WOULD GO DOWN.
THERE WERE COSTLY MANDATES ON
SMALL EMPLOYERS AND THAT WAS
GOING TO DISCOURAGE HIRING.
NANCY PELOSI SAID THEY'D HIGHER
400,000 PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY.
THEY HAVEN'T BEEN HIRED.
ULTIMATELY.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET.
MANDATES THAT WE'VE SEEN HAVE
COME OUT OF THE HEALTH CARE LAW,
DO NOTHING TO SPUR ECONOMIC
GROWTH AND HELP THE 9.1% OF
INDIVIDUALS NATIONWIDE -- 14
MILLION AMERICANS -- WHO ARE
CURRENTICALLY UNEMPLOYED, WHO
ARE LOOKING FOR WORK.
THEN EVEN MORE GOVERNMENT ORDERS
FORCING INDIVIDUALS TO BUY
ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL
GOVERNMENT-APPROVED INSURANCE OR
FACE A FINE.
WELL, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE
NOW HAD 17 MONTHS TO FIND OUT
WHAT IS IN THE PRESIDENT'S
HEALTH CARE LAW, AND ONE NEWS
REPORT AFTER ANOTHER HAS BEEN
UNCOVERING A LAUNDRY LIST OF
CARE LAW.
WELL, FORMER SPEAKER PELOSI
WANTED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO
FIND OUT WHAT'S IN THE LAW, AND
17 AMONGSTS LATER, THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE ARE FINDING OUT THAT THE
PRESIDENT AND WASHINGTON
DEMOCRATS DIDN'T EVEN WRITE IT
CORRECTLY.
ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, OF
THIS YEAR "INVESTORS' BUSINESS
DAILY" PRINTED AN ARTICLE
ENTITLED "OOPS: NO OBAMA TAX
CREDIT VIA FEDERAL EXCHANGES."
THE WAY OBAMA CARE WAS WRITTEN,
INDIVIDUAL WHOSE QUALIFY FOR A
TAXPAYER-FUNDED SUBDISOI BUY
GOVERNMENT-APPROVED HEALTH
INSURANCE IN THE NEW STATE
EXCHANGES MAY NOT GET IT.
SECTION 1311 OF THE HEALTH CARE
LAW REQUIRES THE STATES TO SET
UP STATE-RUN EXCHANGES.
THIS STATE-BASED EXCHANGE IS A
PLACE WHERE INDIVIDUALS CAN USE
THEIR GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY TO BUY
HEALTH INSURANCE.
NOW, IF A STATE DECLINES TO SET
UP THEIR OWN EXCHANGE, THEN
SECTION 1321 MANDATES THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SET IT UP AND
RUN IT FOR THEM.
HERE'S THE CATCH:
THE HEALTH CARE LAW, AS WRITTEN,
AS SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT,
SPLICE UTLEY SAYS THAT THE
TAXPAYER-FUNDED SUBSIDIES CAN
ONLY GO TO PEOPLE WHO ARE
ENROLLED IN EXCHANGES SET UP BY
THE STATE.
NOWHERE DOES THE HEALTH CARE LAW
MENTION THAT THE SUBSIDY CAN BE
GIVEN TO PEOPLE ENROLLED IN THE
FEDERAL EXCHANGE.
SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOW
FINDING OUT THAT THEIR FAMILY
MIGHT ACTUALLY QUALIFY FOR
GOVERNMENT HELP TO BUY HEALTH
INSURANCE BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING
TO RECEIVE THE HELP.
INSTEAD, INDIVIDUALS ENROLLED IN
THE FEDERALLY RUNNED EXCHANGES
COULD BE FORCED TO BUY HEALTH
INSURANCE THAT ABSOLUTELY THEY
CANNOT AFFORD.
NOT ONLY MIGHT THIS LAW CAUSE
INDIVIDUALS TO SPEND MONEY THAT
THEY DON'T HAVE, THE LAW MAY
ALSO OFFER TAX-FUNDED SUBSIDIES
TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T ACTUALLY
NEED IT.
LET ME REPEAT THAT.
THE LAW MAY ACTUALLY OFFER
TAX-FUNDED SUBSIDIES TO PEOPLE
WHO DON'T ACTUALLY NEED IT.
AT A TIME WHEN OUR COUNTRY CAN
HARDLY AFFORD TO SPEND MONEY WE
DON'T HAVE, MEDICARE'S CHIEF
ACTUARY, RICHARD FOSTER, EXPOSED
YET ANOTHER GLITCH IN THE
PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE LAW.
THE LAW ALLOWS APPROXIMATELY 3
MILLION MIDDLE-CLASS EARLY
RETIREES TO QUALIFY FOR
MEDICAID.
WELL, MEDICAID IS A SAFETY NET
PROGRAM DESIGNED TO HELP
LOW-INCOME AMERICANS.
HERE'S HOW THIS ONE WORKS:
THE HEALTH CARE LAW DEFINES HOW
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL SET
AN INDIVIDUAL'S MEDICAID
ELIGIBILITY.
THE CALCULATIONS ARE ALL BASED
ON INCOME.
HERE'S THE GLITCH:
THE HEALTH CARE LAW EXCLUDES A
LARGE PART OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S
SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME FROM THAT
CALCULATION.
WELL, TODAY FEDERAL LOW-INCOME
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS ARE REQUIRED
TO COUNT SOCIAL SECURITY
BENEFITS AS PART OF AN
INDIVIDUAL'S INCOME.
THANKS TO THE HEALTH CARE LAW,
EARLY RETIREES EARNING UP TO
$58,840 A YEAR COULD NOW BE
ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID.
HERE'S WHAT MR. FOSTER SAID IN
AN ASSOCIATED PRESS ARTICLE:
HE SAID.
"I DON'T GENERALLY COMMENT ON
THE PROS OR CONS OF POLICY, BUT
THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE."
THIS IS THE CHIEF ACTUARY OF
"I DON'T GENERALLY COMMENT ON
THE PROS OR CONS OF POLICY, BUT
THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE."
WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, I AGREE.
THAT'S WHY I'VE COSPONSORED
LEGISLATION INTRODUCED BY
SENATOR MIKE ENZI CLOSING THIS
LOOPHOLE.
SENATOR ENZI'S BILL, S. 1376,
CHANGES THE HEALTH CARE LAW'S
SUBSIDY-ELIGIBILITY CALCULATION
TO INCLUDE ALL NONTAXABLE SOCIAL
SECURITY INCOME.
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
AND THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON
TAXATION ESTIMATE THAT IF WE
ENACTED SENATOR ENZI'S BILL, WE
WILL SAVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT
$13 BILLION.
THE SENATE SHOULD IMMEDIATELY
TAKE UP S. 1376 AND PASS IT.
THIS IS $13 BILLION WE CAN SAVE
RIGHT NOW TODAY.
LET'S SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
THAT WHEN WE SEE OUR COUNTRY
SPENDING MONEY THAT IT
SHOULDN'T, THAT WE WILL TAKE A
STAND COLLECTIVELY AS A SENATE
AND STOP IT.
NOW, THESE EXAMPLES -- THESE TWO
EXAMPLES INEVITABLY BEG THE
QUESTION, WHAT NEXT?
CLEARLY, THE SELF-DESCRIBED --
QUOTE -- "MOST TRANSPARENT
ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY" --
CLOSE QUOTE -- HAS A LOT OF
EXPLAINING TO DO I JUST DON'T
BELIEVE THAT MY FRIENDS ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, WHO
WROTE THIS VERY FLAWED HEALTH
CARE LAW -- AND THEY DID IT
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS -- HE JUST
DON'T THINK THAT THEY KNOW WHAT
THEY'RE DOING WHAT THEY WROTE
THESE PROVISIONS.
HOW DO I KNOW THAT?
WELL, IF THEY UNDERSTOOD HOW
DEVASTATING THEIR POLICIES WOULD
BE, THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD SECOND
THOUGHTS.
HOW MANY MORE DESTRUCTIVE
TICKING TIME BOMBS ARE THERE
LURKING IN THIS LAW AND IN THE
REGULATIONS THAT STILL HAVEN'T
BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT THIS HEALTH
CARE LAW?
THAT WAS SIGNED A YEAR AND A
HALF AGO?
WE DON'T KNOW.
WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE MANY OF
THE PROVISIONS DON'T EVEN GO
INTO EFFECT UNTIL THE YEAR 12014
OR LATER.
-- UNTIL THE YEAR 2014 OR LATER.
AS A PHYSICIAN WHOSE PRACTICED
MED SANE LONG TIME, CARED FOR
PATIENTS ALL OVER THE STATE OF
WYOMING, HAS BROUGHT LONG-TERM
HEALTH CARE TO PEOPLE ALL ACROSS
THE COWBOY STATE, I INTEND TO
FIGHT EACH AND EVERY DAY IN THE
SENATE TO MAKE SURE THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WILL NOT HAVE TO FIND OUT
WHAT KIND OF ADDITIONAL TICKING
TIME BOMBS THERE ARE IN THE
HEALTH CARE LAW.
THAT'S BECAUSE I AM MORE
COMMITTED THAN EVER TO REPEAL
THE HEALTH CARE LAW AND REPLACE
IT WITH PATIENT-CENTERED CARE.
REPLACE IT WITH HEALTH CARE
REFORMS THAT HELP AMERICAN
FAMILIES GET THE CARE THEY NEED
AND THE DOCTOR THEY WANT AT A
PRICE THEY CAN AFFORD.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A
QUORUM.
THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
THE
SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO DISPENSE WITH THE
READING OF THE ROLL.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
THEN THE SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
IS RECOGNIZED.
PRESIDENT.
I KNOW WE'VE HAD SEVERAL
SPEECHES IN THE LAST COUPLE OF
HOURS ON VERY IMPORTANT TOPICS,
THE JOBS BILL, OUR EFFORTS TO
STIMULATE THE RECOVERY, A
RESPONSE FROM OUR DEMOCRATIC
LEADER TO SENATOR SESSIONS, AND
THE GOOD SENATOR WHO WAS JUST
SPEAKING TALKING ABOUT HEALTH
CARE.
BUT I'VE COME TO FOCUS OUR
ATTENTION, IF I COULD, AGAIN
THIS AFTERNOON -- WE SPENT MOST
OF YESTERDAY TALKING ABOUT A
MATTER THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT
AT HAND, AND THAT IS DISASTER
RELIEF FUNDING, AND CALLING ON
THIS SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO FOCUS SOME
IMMEDIATE AND COMPREHENSIVE
THOUGHT AND ATTENTION ON THIS
SUBJECT, WHICH IS AFFECTING SO
MANY OF OUR CONSTITUENTS.
REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS, AND
INDEPENDENTS, BIG CITIES,
SMALL TOWNS, AND RURAL AREAS,
ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY.
IN FACT, THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR
IN OUR MEMORY AND IN I THINK THE
RECORDED RECENT HISTORY THAT,
MR. PRESIDENT, WE'VE HAD A
PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED DISASTER
IN 48 OF OUR 50 STATES.
JUST A FEW DAYS AGO, WE ALONG
THE EASTERN SEABOARD AND THE
GULF COAST WHERE I'M FROM,
REPRESENTING LOUISIANA,
SUFFERED FROM THE REMNANTS OF
THE ORIGINAL HIT AND REMNANTS OF
TROPICAL STORM LEE AND HURRICANE
IRENE AND AS SOME SENATORS THAT
JOINED ME IN A PRESS CONFERENCE
EARLIER TODAY, I THINK IT WAS
THE SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA
SAID IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN THREE
DISASTERS.
AN ECONOMIC DISASTER IN TERMS OF
AN ECONOMY THAT IS WEAK AND
FRAGILE AND WE'RE DOING OUR BEST
TO LIFT IT AND TO STRENGTHEN
IT, AND THEN HURRICANE LEE
AND -- OR TROPICAL STORM LEE
AND THEN HURRICANE IRENE.
AND IT'S BEEN MILLIONS AND
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF DAMAGE.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE ON THE GULF
COAST AND TRAGICALLY ARE GETTING
TO BE EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD
BECAUSE WE AS THE SENATORS AND
HOUSE MEMBERS FROM THE GULF
COAST HAVE BATTLED MULTIPLE
DISASTERS OVER THIS LAST DECADE.
KATRINA AND RITA, WHICH BROKE
ALL RECORDS, SURPASSED ANY
PLANNING THIS GOVERNMENT HAS
EVER DONE, HAD A FEMA THAT
SHOWED UP NOT READY, NOT
COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH IN ITS
VIEW, OUR PEOPLE HAVE SUFFERED
BUT WE'VE MADE A LOT OF CHANGES
SINCE THEN AND HERE WE DAWR WITH
ACTUALLY A BETTER FEMA FROM ALL
ACCOUNTS, AND I WANT TO GIVE A
LOT OF CREDIT TO THIS
ADMINISTRATION PARTICULARLY AND
NOT JUST HOMELAND SECURITY, BUT
THE CABINET OF THIS PRESIDENT
HAS BEEN REALLY EXTRAORDINARY IN
THEIR REASONABLENESS WHEN IT
COMES TO THIS SUBJECT.
AND I'VE SEEN THE OPPOSITE, SO
THE DIFFERENCE.
IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THIS
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IN TERMS OF
THE CABINET.
THEY WANT TO SAY YES TO DISASTER
VICTIMS.
THEY DON'T WANT TO SAY NO.
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
THEY CAN'T ALWAYS SAY YES TO
EVERYTHING, TO REBUILD EVERY
BUILDING, REPAVE EVERY STREET,
ELEVATE EVERY HOME, BUT THEY'RE
TRYING TO SAY YES, AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, THE LAWYERS HAVE
BEEN INSTRUCTED TO FIND A WAY
FORWARD.
AS OWE POINTS OF ORDER --
OPPOSED TO INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE
LAST ADMINISTRATION WHICH WAS TO
FIND A WAY TO SAY NO.
LET ME JUST GIVE CREDIT TO WHERE
CREDIT IS DUE TO THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION IN THEIR
WILLINGNESS TO BE FLEXIBLE, TO
BE FORWARD LEANING, TO HAVE
ATTORNEYS THAT ARE TRYING TO BE
ON THE SIDE OF THE TAXPAYER, ON
THE SIDE OF THE VICTIMS, AND
NOT SHORTCHANGING PEOPLE IN
TIMES OF DESPERATE NEED.
HAVING SAID THAT, THE
ADMINISTRATION CAN'T DO IT ALL
ON THEIR OWN.
THEY NEED CONGRESS AS THE
CONSTITUTION SAYS TO PROVIDE THE
FUNDING SO THAT THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH CAN DO THEIR JOB.
NOW, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH BY
ALL ACCOUNTS, EVEN REPUBLICANS
HAVE COME TO THE FLOOR FROM
STATES THAT HAVE BEEN HARD HIT
AND SAID IT'S A MORE MUSCULAR
FEMA, IT'S A MORE DYNAMIC FEMA,
IT'S A MORE FLEXIBLE FEMA AND I
WANT TO THANK SENATOR LIEBERMAN
AND SENATOR COLLINS.
THEY'RE THE AUTHORIZERS.
YES, I'VE HAD A PART OF IT,
OTHERS HAVE HAD BUT THEY'VE
WORKED TIRELESSLY AFTER KATRINA
AND THE DISASTER THAT HAPPENED
ON THE GULF COAST TO WHERE WE
WERE ALL SHAMED WHEN WE SAW WHAT
DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT SHOULD HAVE.
WE FIXED A LOT OF IT.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE HAPPY
ABOUT AND PROUD ABOUT.
WHEN GOVERNMENT DOES SET ITS
MIND TO IMPROVE THINGS, WE CAN.
BUT WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT
THE FUNDING.
AND RIGHT NOW, FEMA IS EMPTY.
THE POT OF MONEY IS EMPTY.
PROJECTS, MILLIONS, HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TODAY,
NOT JUST IN MY STATE BUT IN
CALIFORNIA, IN TENNESSEE, IN
IOWA, IN TEXAS, AND IN NORTH
DAKOTA, AND I COULD GO ON AND
ON BUT FOR THE RECORD LET ME
JUST SAY A COUPLE.
IN TENNESSEE, MITIGATION OF
PRIVATE RESIDENCES FROM THE 2010
FLOODS HAVE BEEN HALTED.
NOW, FOR THOSE THAT MIGHT NOT
BE FAMILIAR WITH THE WORD
"MITIGATION" WHICH MOST PEOPLE
ARE, IT MEANS YOU COULD BE
ELEVATING YOUR HOUSE, YOU COULD
BE PUTTING SHUTTERS OR STORM
WINDOWS ON YOUR WINDOWS.
LET'S SEE, WHAT ELSE.
YOU COULD BE POTENTIALLY
STRENGTHENING THE FRAME OF YOUR
HOUSE IF YOU'RE TRYING TO
MITIGATE AGAINST HIGH WINDS FROM
A TORNADO.
THERE ARE RULES THAT ALLOW
PEOPLE TO TRY TO IMPROVE YOUR
HOME SO THE NEXT TIME IT HAPPENS
NOT ONLY ARE YOU NOT HOMELESS
BUT TAXPAYERS AREN'T PAYING
AGAIN FOR THE SAME SORT OF
INCIDENT.
AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER
GOOD POLICY REQUIRES A CERTAIN
PORTION OF ALL DISASTER FUNDING
TO BE SPECIFIC.
SENATOR -- THE PRESIDENT KNOWS
THIS FROM MARYLAND, TO GO TO
BECAUSE TAXPAYERS THINK WHEN
YOU'RE TRYING TO REBUILD FROM A
FLOOD OR A STORM OR A TORNADO OR
A BRIDGE COLLAPSE, DON'T JUST
BUILD THE SAME OLD THING.
TRY TO MITIGATE SO IT DOESN'T
THAT'S SMART SO YOU'RE NOT
DOUBLE, TRIPLE SPENDING
TAXPAYER MONEY.
BUT IN TENNESSEE THIS FAMILY,
LET'S SAY, IS IN THE MIDDLE OF
ELEVATING THEIR HOME, LET'S SAY
THEY'VE GOTTEN IT OFF THE --
THE GROUND BY TWO FEET, AND THE
CONTRACTORS SHOWED UP ON MONDAY.
THEY WERE SENT HOME BECAUSE THIS
PROJECT HAS BEEN STOPPED.
SO SOMEWHERE THERE ARE HOMES IN
TENNESSEE, I'M NOT SURE IN WHAT
PARTICULAR COMMUNITY, WHERE
PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRACTORS,
MANY SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND
THEIR EMPLOYEES SHOWED UP TO
WORK AND WERE TOLD GO HOME,
FEMA'S OUT OF MONEY.
WE HAVE TO FIX THIS THIS WEEK
BEFORE WE LEAVE AND IF NOT, AT
THE LATEST BY NEXT WEEK.
NOW, IN IOWA REPAIRS FOR AN
ELECTRIC UTILITY.
I'M NOT SURE WHO PROVIDES
UTILITIES IN IOWA.
POTENTIALLY IT MAY BE --
BECAUSE IN MY STATE IN RURAL
AREAS THE LOCAL RURAL CO-ONS.
THEIR PROJECT HAS BEEN SHUT
DOWN.
POTENTIALLY PEOPLE ARE STILL
RECEIVING ELECTRICITY.
I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE SITTING
IN THE DARK.
I'M HOPING NOT.
BUT WHATEVER THEY WERE PLANNING
TO REPAIR AND FIX IN IOWA HAS
BEEN HALTED BECAUSE WE HAVE RUN
OUT OF MONEY.
IN TEXAS, REPAIRS TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL
FACILITY HAS BEEN STOPPED.
IN LOUISIANA, ROADWAY
CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN STOPPED.
IN FACT, THERE WAS AN ARTICLE
IN OUR PAPER, "THE TIMES
PICAYUNE" JUST THIS WEEK THAT
SAID $100 MILLION FOR JEFFERSON
PARISH, $100 MILLION, THAT'S
JUST ONE OF MY PARISHES, ONE OF
64, THE SUBURBAN PARISH THAT
SITS RIGHT OUTSIDE OF NEW
ORLEANS THAT WAS VERY HARD HIT
BY THESE STORMS, NOT AS HARD AS
ORLEANS PARISH, RECEIVED
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF DAMAGE,
THOSE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN PUT ON
HOLD WHILE WE HELP THE VICTIMS
IN THE NORTHEAST.
THAT SHOULDN'T BE THE CASE.
WE NEED TO ACT QUICKLY TO REFILL
THE FEMA FUND.
IN ADDITION, I UNDERSTAND IN
NORTH DAKOTA AND IN OTHER PLACES
THERE ARE PROBLEMS.
NOW, IT'S NOT JUST THE DETH,
THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS DID NOT
HAVE ENOUGH MONEY LAST YEAR FOR
I SLIPPED OUT OF THE CHAMBER
HERE JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO TO
GO ACTUALLY MEET WITH THE MAYOR
OF GRANDE ISLE WHO WAS HERE AS
HE IS QUITE OFTEN ADVOCATING ON
BEHALF OF THE ONLY BARRIER
ISLAND THAT'S INHABITED IN THE
STATE OF LOUISIANA, AND HE
BROUGHT UP PICTURES, AGAIN,
THEY'RE TOO SMALL TO SEE BUT I'M
GOING TO HAVE THEM BLOWN UP FOR
TOMORROW BUT I HAVE IN MY HAND
PICTURES OF THE LEF EYES THAT
WERE JUST -- LEVEES THAT WERE
RIPPED UP AND DESTROYED,
AGAIN, FROM HURRICANE -- WELL,
FROM THE SENATOR FROM LEE.
THESE WERE LEVEES ON THE GULF
THAT WE JUST COMPLETED, BUT
BECAUSE THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WHEN THEY REBUILD LEVEES IN
THEIR AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION,
THEY ARE PROHIBITED -- WHICH
MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER, IS A
COMPLETE WASTE OF TAXPAYER
MONEY -- THEY'RE PROHIBITED
FROM BETTERMENT.
THEY CAN BUILD BACK WHAT WAS
THERE BUT THEY CAN'T BUILD IT
BETTER OR HIGHER UNLESS THEY ARE
DIRECTED TO DO SO.
WELL, I'M ABOUT READY TO DIRECT
THEM BECAUSE I AM TIRED ON
BEHALF OF MY PEOPLE AND THE
PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY AND THE
TAXPAYERS FROM REBUILDING LEVEES
TEN TIMES IN A MATTER OF FIVE
YEARS.
IT'S A WASTE OF MONEY, IT IS
AGGRAVATING TO THE PEOPLE WHOSE
HOMES ARE BEHIND THESE LEVEES
AND BECAUSE WE DECENT HAVE A
POLICY WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING
LEVEES TO BE ORDERED TO BUILD
THEM STRONGER, HIGHER, EXCEPT
OF COURSE IN THE CASE OF SOME
LEVEE SYSTEMS IN KATRINA THAT
WAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED AND
IT'S BEING DONE.
WE'RE BUILDING AROUND THE CITY
OF NEW ORLEANS A MUCH STRONGER,
MUCH BETTER SYSTEM.
YOU WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE
BEING DONE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY
AND IT'S NOT.
WHY?
BECAUSE WE'RE SHORT ON FUNDING,
SHORT ON POLITICAL WILL, AND
SHORT ON IMAGINATION AND
CREATIVITY WHEN IT COMES TO
BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS
COUNTRY, AND I FOR ONE AM TIRED
OF IT AND SO ARE THE PEOPLE THAT
I REPRESENT.
AND I'M ASKING THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE TO STEP UP AND TO
PROVIDE FUNDING, FUNDING THAT
IS NOT OFFSET IN THE MIDDLE OF A
WE'LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY FOR
THESE LATER.
THESE DISASTER FUNDS LATER.
BUT AS I THINK SENATOR LEAHY
SAID SO ELOQUENTLY IN OUR PRESS
CONFERENCE TODAY, DO THE
REPUBLICAN -- SOME PEOPLE IN
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ACTUALLY
BELIEVE WE WANT FIRE DEPARTMENTS
ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES WHEN
YOUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE, THEY
SHOW UP WITH THE ENGINE AND THEN
THEY DEBATE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
STREET HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PAY
FOR THE EXTRA OVERTIME TO PUT
OUT YOUR FIRE?
I DON'T THINK SO.
EVEN IF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS
BROKE, EVEN IF THE FUNDING IS
RUN OUT, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE
A DEBATE OVER HOW ARE YOU GOING
TO PAY FOR OVERTIME WHEN THE
FIRE IS BURNING.
YOU PUT THE FIRE OUT, YOU BRING
THE PEOPLE TO SAFETY, YOU PUT
THE FAMILY IN SHELTER AND THEN
YOU GO BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL
MEETING NEXT WEEK AND YOU CAN
DEBATE FOR AS LONG AS YOU WANT
PAY FOR IT.
WE PAID FOR WORLD WAR II,
IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO.
IT'S COMPLETELY PAID FOR.
WE PAID FOR WORLD WAR I, WE'RE
PAYING FOR AFGHANISTAN, WE'RE
PAYING FOR IRAQ WHICH BY THE
WAY, NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY
REPUBLICAN -- AND NOT MANY
DEMOCRATS FOR THAT MATTER, BUT
NOT ONE REPUBLICAN THAT I CAN
RECALL STOOD UP AND ASKED OR
DEBATED FOR FIVE SECONDS HOW WE
WERE GOING TO PAY FOR THE WAR IN
IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.
BUT WHEN THE PEOPLE OF VERMONT
?AND FRONT OF THEIR BRIDGES
COLLAPSED, THEIR HOMES
COLLAPSED, THEIR SCHOOLS
COLLAPSE AND SAY WE NEED HELP,
WE NEED NOW A MONTH-LONG DEBATE
ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR
WE HAVEN'T DONE THIS SINCE THE
NOW, WE WILL EVENTUALLY PAY FOR
IT.
EVERYTHING.
WE WILL PAY FOR IT.
WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT
DEBATE NOW.
WHAT WE DO HAVE TO HAVE A DEBATE
ABOUT IS HOW DO YOU REPAIR
LEVEES AND WHAT'S THE BEST WAY
TO MITIGATE AND WHAT ARE THE NEW
TECHNOLOGIES THAT CAN BE USED TO
MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES STRONGER
AND SMARTER.
HOW CAN WE STREAMLINE THE
PROCESS, HOW CAN WE ELIMINATE
THE RED TAPE, HOW CAN WE GET
HELP TO PEOPLE FASTER?
THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE
DEBATING ABOUT.
INSTEAD, I'VE GOT CANTOR AND
BOEHNER MAKING US ARGUE ABOUT
WHAT OFFSET.
I HAVE TO GO TO MAYBE THE
PRESIDENT'S STATE IN MARYLAND
AND SAY SENATOR, WHAT CAN YOU
GIVE UP THIS YEAR IN YOUR STATE
OR I HAVE TO GO TO MICHIGAN,
WHAT CAN YOU GIVE UP IN MICHIGAN
OR I HAVE TO GO TO CALIFORNIA,
WHAT CAN YOU ALL GIVE UP IN
CALIFORNIA SO WE CAN PAY FOR
PEOPLE THAT ARE UNDER WATER IN
VERMONT, AND NORTH DAKOTA.
-- AND NORTH CAROLINA.
WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT IS THIS?
I DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF
THAT AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE.
SO WE'VE GOT TO FUND THESE
DISASTERS NOW AND THE SADDEST
THING ABOUT ALL THIS, MR.
PRESIDENT, ARE THE -- IT'S SAD
AND IT'S ALSO PUZZLING AND IT'S
PER PLECTING AND -- PERPLEXING
AND AGGRAVATING BECAUSE WE
ALREADY SORT OF MADE THIS DEAL A
MONTH AGO WHEN WE NEGOTIATED
THAT BIG, YOU KNOW, AGREEMENT
THAT WE ALL CAME TO ABOUT HOW
THE LEVELS OF FUNDING WOULD BE
FOR 2012.
EVERYBODY REMEMBERS THAT BEFORE
WE LEFT FOR AUGUST AND HAD THIS
BIG KNOCKDOWN, DRAGOUT.
WELL, IN THAT AGREEMENT OUR
LEADERSHIP, REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS ALREADY AGREED TO TO
DO SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS
VERY SMART AND I WANT TO SHOW
YOU WHAT THEY AGREED TO.
CAN WE PUT THAT CHART UP ON THE
EXPENDITURES.
THEY AGREED BECAUSE IT'S A
PUZZLEMENT, HOW DO YOU FUND IN
ADVANCE DISASTERS, HOW DO YOU
KNOW HOW MUCH TO SET ASIDE, YOU
KNOW, IT'S A PROBLEM BECAUSE
EVERY YEAR IS DIFFERENT.
AND I WANT TO SHOW YOU WHAT OUR
PROBLEM IS.
SO PEOPLE LISTENING CAN GIVE ME
THEIR OWN SUGGESTIONS ABOUT HOW
TO SOLVE IT.
IN 2003, WE SET ASIDE IN THE
WHOLE BUDGET OF THE UNITED
STATES, YOU CAN SEE THIS A
LITTLE BIT, $800 MILLION FOR
DISASTERS.
BUT WE HAD $1.7 BILLION.
SO WE WERE SHORT $984 MILLION
AND THAT WENT ON OUR BOOKS.
WE FUNDED IT.
THE NEXT YEAR WE SAID WE HAD
$1.7 BILLION IN DISASTERS SO THE
NEXT YEAR WE PUT $1.8 BILLION IN
THE BILL, WE WOULD COVER IT,
LAST YEAR WAS $1.7 BILLION BUT
LO AND BEHOLD WE HAD HAD AN
ADDITIONAL $3 BILLION IN
DISASTER FUNDING.
SO THE NEXT YEAR WE INCREASED
THE MONEY AND LO AND BEHOLD WE
PUT $2 BILLION, AND KATRINA HIT
AND THE LEVEES BROKE AND YOU
KNOW WHAT THE BILL CAME IN FOR,
MR. PRESIDENT?
$43 BILLION.
WE HAD BUDGETED $2 BILLION
BECAUSE ALL IN THE HISTORY OF
THE PAST, THAT'S ALL WE REALLY
NEEDED TO COVER DISASTERS.
IT WENT FROM $2 BILLION TO $43
BILLION.
NOW, WHO WOULD HAVE HAD A
CRYSTAL BALL KNOW THAT?
DID WE SIT AND DEBATE?
WELL, SOME PEOPLE TRIED TO,
UNTIL I SAID THERE WAS NO WAY I
WAS GOING TO HAVE TO FIND THE
$43 BILLION OFFSET BEFORE WE
COULD LET THE PEOPLE OF THE GULF
WAY.
SO WE SPENT WHAT WAS REQUIRED TO
HELP REBUILD THE GULF COAST.
SEE.
SO THESE NUMBERS ARE VERY
ERRATIC.
THEY'RE UNPREDICTABLE.
SO WHAT OUR LEADERSHIP DID,
LOOKING BACK ON THEIR TEN YEARS
AND LISTENING TO THE DEBATE AND
THE ARGUMENT, THEY CAME UP WITH
THIS IS THEIR PLAN:
THEY SAID, OKAY, WE'LL THROW OUT
THE HIGH NUMBER, WE'LL THROW OUT
THE LOW NUMBER, LIKE IN 2009 WE
DIDN'T HAVE ANY EMERGENCIES.
CAN YOU IMAGINE ONE YEAR YOU
HAVE NO DECLARED EMERGENCIES AND
THE NEXT YEAR YOU HAVE A
EVERY STATE.
THAT'S HOW ERRATIC THIS IS.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE NOT TRYING
TO PLAN.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE BY THE NATURE OF
WHAT AN EMERGENCY AND DISASTER
IS TO PLAN.
YOU CAN PLAN FOR THEM, BUT YOU
CAN'T ALWAYS PREDICT EXACTLY HOW
MANY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AND
WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE.
OF COURSE, EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS
THAT.
SO WHAT OUR LEADERS DID IS THEY
THREW OUT THE TOP ONE, THREW OUT
THE BOTTOM ONE AND CAME UP WITH
THAT AVERAGE IS ABOUT $11
BILLION, A VERY REASONABLE
SO THEY PUT IN OUR AGREEMENT
THAT WE MADE 30 DAYS AGO -- WE
SAID, OKAY, NEXT YEAR THIS IS
WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN
SPEND AND IN ADDITION TO THAT
YOU CAN GO UP TO THE AVERAGE.
SO YOU CAN SPEND AN ADDITIONAL
$11 BILLION, WHICH IS REALLY A
VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY
COMPARED TO THE WHOLE FEDERAL
SO YOU WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD
NOT BE HAVING THIS DEBATE.
WHY?
THE NEED IS VERY EVIDENT.
THE HISTORY WOULD DICTATE THAT
WE DON'T HAVE THIS DEBATE OVER
AND THE REPUBLICAN AND
DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP HAS
ALREADY PROVIDED A WAY OVER AND
ABOVE OUR 2012 NUMBERS TO PAY
FOR THESE DISASTERS.
SO I ASK, WHY ARE WE HAVING TO
FIGHT FOR THIS?
THAT IS A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
I THINK IT'S BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE
THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING TO
FIGHT ABOUT.
THEY THINK THAT THEY HAVE TO GO
FIND A PAY-FOR FOR EVERYTHING WE
DO, EVEN WHEN I'VE DESCRIBED YOU
CAN'T PREDICT, EVEN IF YOU DO
PLAN RESPONSIBLY, YOU NEVER
KNOW, AS IN THE CASE OF KATRINA
AND RITA AND WILMA.
AND BECAUSE OUR LEADERSHIP
ALREADY NEGOTIATED A WAY FORWARD
FOR US.
BUT YET WE HAVE PEOPLE NOW ALL
OVER THE COUNTRY LOOKING TO THE
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP, LISTENING
TO REPRESENTATIVE CANTOR,
LISTENING TO REPRESENTATIVE
BOEHNER, SPEAKER BOEHNER SAY,
I'D LIKE TO HELP
AN OFFSET.
I THINK PEOPLE SAY, WELL, WHY
DIDN'T WE HEAR THAT WHEN THEY
SENT TROOPS INTO AFGHANISTAN OR
IRAQ?
WHY DIDN'T WE HEAR THAT WHEN
THEY'RE REBUILDING IRAQ AND
AFGHANISTAN?
THE SAME PEOPLE AREN'T STANDING
UP YELLING AND SCREAMING, OR
DIDN'T WHEN WE WENT IN.
AND I THINK THEY HAVE A GOOD --
A GOOD POINT.
SO I'M SAYING THAT I AM PROUD OF
THE SENATE FOR LAST NIGHT, WITH
DEMOCRATS MOSTLY AND, YES, ABOUT
EIGHT REPUBLICANS THAT VOTED TO
MOVE THIS DEBATE FORWARD.
I THANK PARTICULARLY SENATOR
BLUNT FROM MISSOURI, WHO'S BEEN
AN OUTSTANDING LEADER ON THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE FOR THE
NEED TO ACT NOW, TO ACT QUICKLY,
TO FUND THE DIRF, TO FUND THE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
MISSOURI HAS HAD TERRIBLE STORMS
AND FLOODS.
THEY HAD THE GREAT FLOOD OF
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, WHICH WAS THE
IT WAS SO HIGH ALONG OUR CAPITAL
CITY WHEN I VISITED WITH OUR
MAYOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO IN
BATON RIEWDGES, OUR CAPITAL
STIRKS NOW OUR LARGEST CITY,
SINCE 100,000 PEOPLE HAVE LEFT
NEW ORLEANS TO LITERALLY LIVE ON
HIGHER GROUND, ALTHOUGH IT'S
BROKEN THEIR HEARTS AND DIVIDED
UP THEIR FAMILIES, THEY HAVE
MOVED TO BATON ROUGE, OUR
CAPITAL STIRKS AS WE REBUILD OUR
LEVEES AND OUR FLOOD CONTROL
STRUCTURES STRONGER IN THE
SOUTHERN PART OF OUR STATE, AND
PEOPLE SPEND TIME WALKING ON THE
LEAFLEVEES, RIDING BIKES.
MECHANICAL VEHICLES ARE NOT
ALLOWED AND YOU CAN'T HAVE
4-WHEELERS BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE
DESTRUCTIVE.
THE LEVEES ARE ALMOST LIKE
LINEAR PARKS.
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY,
THE MAYOR HAD TO DECLARE
EVERYBODY TO STAY OFF THE LEVEES
BECAUSE THE WATER WAS SO HIGH
AND SEEPING THROUGH, WE
LITERALLY THOUGHT MAYBE EVEN
SOME OF THESE GREAT LEVEE
SYSTEMS WOULD BREACH.
HAPPILY, THEY DID NOT.
BUT IT WAS A REALLY FRIGHTENING
SITUATION FOR MILLIONS AND
MILLIONS.
IN 10 SOME PARTS NORTH US, THE
LEVEES DID BREACH.
IT'S FRIGHTENING IF YOU LIVE
BEHIND OR YOUR BUSINESS IS
BEHIND ONE OF THOSE LEVEES, AS
NORTH DAKOTA RESIDENTS KNOW ALL
TOO WELL.
BUT NONETHELESS, WE SHOULD NOT
BE DEBATING THIS.
I'M HOPING OUR BILL WILL PASS
THIS WEEK AND GET OVER TO THE
HOUSE FOR A QUICK VOTE.
IF THE HOUSE DECIDES TO SEND US
A CONTINUING RESOLUTION, PLEASE
-- I WANT THE HOUSE LEADERSHIP
TO HEAR CLEARLY WHAT I'M SAYING
AND I'M GOING TO SEND THEM A
MESSAGE BY LETTER IN THE NEXT
FEW MINUTES -- PLEASE DO NOT
THINK THAT YOU CAN
EFFORTS, THAT YOU CAN FUND IT
SIX WEEKS AT A TIME OR FOUR
WEEKS AT A TIME.
DISASTER RECOVERY DOESN'T
OPERATE THAT WAY.
OUR A MAYORS, OUR GOVERNORS, THE
REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR OF NOTHER,
THE REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR OF
VIRGINIA, THE MAYORS OF
PATTERSON, WHO IS WITH US TODAY,
AND MARRIAGE PENALTIES AND DOWN
THEIR PEOPLE EVERY DAY, THE
MAYOR OF JOPLIN MISSOURI HAS TO
BE ABLE TO NAY TO KNOW THAT HE CAN PLAN
A YEAR OUT FOR TWO YEARS OUT.
HOW TO REBUILD AN ENTIRE TOWN IS
OVERWHELMING EVEN IF YOU HAVE
THE MONEY AND THE PLAN.
CAN YOU IMAGINE IF YOU SORT OF
HAVE A PLAN BUT YOU DON'T KNOW
IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
NOT?
DO YOU KNOW THE FRUSTRATING
COUNCIL MEETINGS AND SCHOOL
BOARD MEETINGS THAT'LL BE HAD
AND THEY'LL SAY, WELL, THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY IN WASHINGTON
CAN'T FIGURE OUT IF WE SHOULD
GET FUNDING, BUT IT'S SIX WEEKS
AT A TIME.
I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW THAT TO
I AM GOING TOO LAY THE LINE IN
THE SAND RIGHT NOW.
YOU MAY GET AROUND HEY ON IT,
BUT IT IS GOING TO TAKE A HUGE
EFFORT TO GET AROUND THIS DESK
ON THAT SUBJECT.
A HUGE EFFORT.
IF I HAVE TO SHUT THE SENATE
DOWN, I'VE DONE IT BEFORE, I
WILL DO IT AGAIN.
BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU, AS MUCH
AS MY NAME IS MARY LANDRIEU, YOU
CANNOT REBUILD COMMUNITIES WITH
SIX-WEEK PLANS.
IT TOOK US A WHOLE YEAR -- IT
TOOK TWOS YEARS TO PUT TOGETHER
THE RURAL HOME PROGRAM,
TWO YEARS AFTER WE GOT THE
FUNDING.
AND THE REASON WE COULDN'T PUT
IT TOGETHER BEFORE, EVEN THOUGH
MISSISSIPPI HAD THEIR MONEY
BECAUSE PRESIDENT BUSH GAVE THEM
THEIR MONEY PRIET AWAY BUT MADE
THE PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA WAIT,
THE REASONING WE COULDN'T DO OUR
PLAN IS BECAUSE CONGRESS
WOULDN'T DECIDE HOW MUCH MONEY
TO GIVE US.
NO MAYOR, NO GOVERNOR, NO MATTER
HOW GREAT THEY ARE, NO MATTER
HOW SMART THEY ARE, NO MATTER
HOW MANY ENGINEERS THEY HAVE, NO
MATTER HOW MANY ROTARY CLUBS ARE
HELPING, NO MATTER WHAT THE
COMMERCE, YOU KNOW -- THE COMAIM
OF COMMERCE IS DOING, I'M
TELLING YOUTELLING YOU, IT CANNOT BE DONE
WITHOUT A RELIABLE SOURCE OF
FUNDING SO THE PLANNERS CAN SIT
THIS:
WE LOST EIGHT SCHOOLS IN THIS
TOGETHER.
THESE ARE HOW THESE DISCUSSIONS
GO.
WE MIGHT NOT HAVE MONEY TO BUILD
ALL EIGHT, BUT WE HAVE MONEY TO
BUILD SIX.
WHICH SIX DO YOU WANT TO BUILD
THEM?
WHAT MATERIALS DO YOU WANT TO
USE AND WHICH KIDS SHOULD GO TO
WHICH SCHOOLS?
I'VE BEEN IN THESE MEETINGS.
I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE
MAYORS AND GOVERNORS TO CALL
THEIR PEOPLE TOGETHER AND SAY,
WE LOST SIX SCHOOLS AND WE DON'T
KNOW WHEN THE MONEY IS COMING TO
BUILD THEM, AND WE CAN'T MAKE
ANY PLANS BECAUSE THE REPUBLICAN
LEADERSHIP HAS DECIDED THAT
EVERY SIX WEEKS THEY'RE GOING TO
LET US KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY WE'RE
GOING TO GET.
THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
SO I WANT SPEAKER BOEHNER TO
THINK ABOUT THIS AND I WANT
MITCH McCONNELL TO THINK ABOUT
THIS AND I WANT THE REPUBLICAN
LEADERSHIP.
I WILL NEGOTIATE ON THE TOP
NUMBER, I'LL TALK ABOUT MAYBE
FEMA DOESN'T NEED QUITE THIS
MUCH, I'LL TALK ABOUT, WELL,
MAYBE THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DOESN'T REALLY NEED THAT MUCH,
BUT I WILL NOT, UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCE, AGREE TO A
SIX-MONTH OR FOUR-WEEK -- NOT
SIX-MONTH, A SIX MANUFACTURE
WEEK OR FOUR-WEEK -- A SIX-WEEK
OR FOUR-WEEK CONTINUING
RESOLUTION.
YOU MAY RUN THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES THAT WAY.
WE'VE UNFORTUNATELY GOTTEN USED
THAT'S A VERY SAD COMEN TAKERS -- THAT'S A
VERY SAD COMEN TAKERS I MIGHT
SAY.
WE OPERATE ON A SIX- WEEK BASIS.
BUT THAT MIGHT BE THE GAME WE
PLAY WITH THE GOVERNMENT.
BUT I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW THAT
GAME TO BE PLAYED WITH PEOPLE
WHO HAVE LOST THEIR HOMES, LOST
THEIR BUSINESSES, AND PEOPLE
THAT LOOK UP FROM THE STORM AND
TO ME?
AND THEY THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE
WE CAN'T MAKE A DECISION THAT
LASTS MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OR A
YEAR.
SO THE MINIMUM -- THE MINIMUM
WILL BE SIX MONTHS.
AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN FIND THE
WILL TO DO A WHOLE YEAR, BECAUSE
WITHOUT THAT, YOU ARE GOING TO
SHUT DOWN RECOVERY OPERATIONS AT
A TIME IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE IT
IS HEARTBREAKING TO THINK OF
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WHO HAVE
LOST THEIR PRINT SHOP OR THEY'VE
LOST THEIR DRESS STORE, THEY'VE
LOST THEIR SHOE STORE AND THEY
SEE EVERYBODY TALKING ABOUT
THEY USED TO HAVE THREE OF THEM
LAST WEEK SELLING THEIR PRINTING
MATERIAL OR SELLING SHOES OR
WHATEVER.
AND THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THEIR
BUSINESS BACK, AND WE CAN'T
DECIDE WHETHER, EVEN THOUGH WE
HAVE THE MONEY -- WE HAVE THE
MONEY, AND ALTHOUGH WE ALREADY
BUDGETED FOR THE MONEY, 0
ALTHOUGH WE ALREADY MADE AN
AGREEMENT ABOUT HOW WE WOULD DO
THIS, WE'RE GOING TO STILL ARGUE
ARGUE?
I TELL YOU, IF THIS IS ON THE
TEA PARTY AGENDA, I'D SUGGEST
THEY TAKE IT OFF.
AND IF IT'S SOMEBODY ELSE'S
JEANSDZ, PLEASE SPEAK UP.
I HAVE NOT HAD ONE SINGLE
REPUBLICAN SENATOR COME DOWN AND
DEFEND THIS POSITION BECAUSE IT
IS INDEFENSIBLE.
SO I HOPE WHEN THE LEADERSHIP IS
NEGOTIATING, WHICH THEY'RE
NEGOTIATING RIGHT NOW, THEY WILL
HEAR ME IN A SUMMARY VERY
QUICKLY:
FEMA IS -- THE FEMA POT IS
THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS IS ALWAYS
RUNNING ON FUMES.
LEVEES ARE BREAKING AND FLOODING
IS OCCURRING IN PLACES THAT
HAVEN'T FLOODED IN 100 YEARS.
WILL WE WAKE UP AND REALIZE THAT
WE HAVE TO PUT MORE MONEY IN
EMERGENCY FUNDING AND WE HAVE TO
BE THERE WHEN OUR PEOPLE ARE
HURTING, LIKE THEY ARE NOW, AND
WE WILL EVENTUALLY PAY FOR THIS.
WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT
IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS.
TWOAF GIVE THEM A GREEN LIGHT,
GIVE THEM THE BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS THEY NEED TO OPERATE FOR
A YEAR.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS NEGOTIATABLE.
BUT IT IS NOT GOING TO BE
NEGOTIATED.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO REBUILD 48
STATES OR PIECE OF 48 STATES
FOUR WEEKS AT A TIME.
THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
SO WHATEVER AMOUNT OF MONEY WE
GIVE, LET IT BE FOR AS LONG AS
WE POSSIBLY CAN MAKE IT.
LET IT BE AS -- YOU KNOW, AS
ROBUST AS IT POSSIBLY CAN BE AND
GIVE A GREEN LIGHT TO OUR
REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS, REPUBLICAN
MAYORS, OUR INDEPENDENTS, OUR
DEMOCRATS OUT THERE.
JUST SHELL-SHOCKED RIGHT NOW
ABOUT THE WORK BEFORE THEM.
AND THE PEOPLE IN NEIGHBORHOODS
THAT ARE STILL CRYING AND IN
SHOCK ABOUT WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO
AND MAKING DECISIONS, SHOULD WE
COME BACK, SHOULD WE NOT COME
BACK, WHAT SHOULD OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD DO, WHAT SHOULD OUR
COMMUNITY DO, MAYBE WE SHOULD
ALL MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND?
THESE DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE
RIGHT NOI AND THE LAST THING
THEY SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT IS
CONGRESS DEBATING WHETHER
THERE'S MONEY THERE TO TURN THAT
HOSE ON.
SO, LET'S DO OUR JOB THE WAY
WE'VE DONE IT FOR, YOU KNOW, 150
YEARS.
LET'S CONTINUE TO DO T LET OUR
PEOPLE KNOW WE'RE THERE FOR
THEM, JUST LIKE WE TRY TO BE
THERE FOR OTHER PEOPLE IN THE
WORLD THAT ARE CAUGHT IN
SITUATIONS LIKE THIS.
WE MOST CERTAINLY NEED TO BE
HERE FOR OUR MEME IN AMERICA.
I -- FOR OUR PEOPLE IN AMERICA.
I THANK THE CHAIR AND YEEMPLETD
QUORUM.
THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL: