Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
AND JOIN US IN REALLY SOFRLG THE
PROBLEMS OF -- IN REALLY SOLVING
THE PROBLEMS OF AMERICA.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: STPH-PT.
THE
SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA.
MADAM PRESIDENT,
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT I
BE PERMITTED TO ENTER INTO A
COLLOQUY WITH MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES FOR UP TO 30 MINUTES.
SENATOR ALEXANDER OF TENNESSEE,
SENATOR HOEVEN OF NORTH DAKOTA,
AND SENATOR RISCH OF IDAHO WILL
COLLOQUY.
PARTICIPATE WITH ME IN THIS
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
JANUARY JANUARY I WOULD LIKE --
I WOULD LIKE
TODAY TO SPEAK TO AN ISSUE THAT
I BELIEVE HAS ALL THE POTENTIAL
IN THE WORLD TO DEFINE THE
FUTURE THIS HAVE GREAT COUNTRY,
AND IT'S AN ISSUE THAT ALL OF US
WHO ARE PARTICIPATING IN THIS
COLLOQUY ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH,
AND THAT IS A BALANCED BUDGET.
ALL OF US ARE FORMER GOVERNORS
OF THE STATES WHERE WE COME
FROM.
IN MY STATE, THE STATE OF
NEBRASKA, OUR NEBRASKA
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A BALANCED
BUDGET, NOT A MUTUAL.
I BELIEVE 49 OUT OF 50 STATES
HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT IN THEIR
CONSTITUTION.
IT'S NOT THEATER.
IT'S THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS AT
THE STATE LEVEL.
IN ADDITION TO THAT PROVISION,
HOWEVER, OUR STATE CONSTITUTION
ALSO SAYS THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF MONEY THAT THE STATE OF
$100,000.
NEBRASKA CAN BORROW IS $100,000.
SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
WE MUST BALANCE THE BUDGET ON 0
AN ANNUAL BASIS, AND WE CAN'T GO
OUT TO THE DEBT MARKET AND
BURDEN OUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN BY FULFILLING
PROMISES THAT, KWAOET HONESTLY,
IT.
WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW WE'D PAY FOR
WE CAN'T DO THAT.
DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?
THAT'S WHAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DOES EVERY SINGLE
YEAR, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HAS BEEN DOING IT FOR DECADES
AND DECADES.
YOU SEE, IN NEBRASKA,
MADAM PRESIDENT, WE ARE FORCED
TO PRIORITIZE AND LIVE WITHIN
OUR MEANS.
WE HAVE A VERY SIMPLE
STRAIGHTFORWARD PHILOSOPHY.
WE DON'T PROMISE SOMETHING THAT
WE CAN'T PAY FOR AND WE DON'T
BUY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T PAY
FOR.
NOW, IS THAT UNUSUAL?
IS THAT RADICAL?
EVERY WORKING FAMILY IN AMERICA
UNDERSTANDS THAT, AND THEY LIVE
BY THAT SIMPLE CONCEPT.
THE SIMPLE CONCEPT THAT YOU
SHOULDN'T BE BUYING THINGS THAT
YOU CAN'T PAY FOR.
IF YOU DO, IT GETS YOU IN
TROUBLE.
SADLY, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
JUST DOESN'T THINK THAT
APPLIES -- THINKS IT'S KIND OF A
RATIONAL NOTION TO APPLY THAT TO
WHAT HAPPENS HERE IN WASHINGTON.
LET'S LOOK AT THE RESULTS OF
THIS KIND OF POLICY IN MY STATE
OF NEBRASKA.
THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN
NEBRASKA TODAY IS 4.1%.
4.1%.
DURING ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT
TIMES SINCE THE GREAT
DEPRESSION, THE UNEMPLOYMENT
5%.
RATE IN NEBRASKA NEVER EXCEEDED
AS I SAID BEFORE ONGOING THIS
FLOOR -- AS I SAID BEFORE ON
THIS FLOOR, LET ME STATE THAT A
DIFFERENT WAY.
THAT MEANS THAT ABOUT 96% OF
NEBRASKAANS HAVE WORKED.
YOU SEE, OUR STATE BELIEVES IN
GOVERNMENT.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF LESS
I'VE SAID MANY TIMES GOVERNMENT
DOESN'T CREATE THE JOBS.
THE PRIVATE SECTOR CREATES THE
JOBS.
IT'S SMALL BUSINESSES AND
BUSINESSES WILLING TO TAKE THE
RISK THAT WILL GET US OUT OF THE
TOUGH TIMES WE ARE IN NOW.
WHEN I WAS GOVERNOR, NEBRASKA
TIMES.
WENT THROUGH SOME VERY DIFFICULT
I WAS GOVERNOR ON 9/11.
I WAS GOVERNOR WHEN DOT-COM
BUBBLE BURST.
WELL, I DIDN'T HAVE THE OPTION
OF WALKING INTO MY STATE OF THE
STATE ADDRESS AND STANDING THERE
AND SAYING, GEE, FOLKS, THIS IS
TOUGH TIMES.
WE'RE KIND OF DIVIDED OUT HERE.
WE WON'T BE PASSING THE BUDGET.
HAD I SAID THAT, I WOULD HAVE
BEEN LOOKING FOR ANOTHER STATE
TO LIVE IN.
I WOULD HAVE BEEN LAUGHED OUT OF
THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.
THERE WERE NO EASY BUT THERE
WERE NECESSARY AND IMPORTANT
DECISIONS TO BE MADE.
NEBRASKA PRAGMATISM WOULD GO A
LONG WAY HERE IN WASHINGTON, BUT
YOU KNOW WHAT?
MY STATE IS NOT UNIQUE.
MY STATE IS NOT IN TERMS OF THIS
BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENT.
IN FACT, I HAVE OTHER GOVERNORS
WITH ME TODAY.
I'D LIKE TO START OUT BY
RECOGNIZING SENATOR LE MARCH
ALEXANDER -- SENATOR LAMAR
ALEXANDER OF THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE.
SENATOR ALEXANDER, WHEN YOU
BECAME GOVERNOR, I KNOW THAT YOU
HAD A LOT OF PRIORITIES BUT YOU
CREATED AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH
JOB CREATORS COULD THRIVE.
YOU CREATED THAT ENVIRONMENT
WITH THE SPENDING REQUIREMENTS
OF YOUR CONSTITUTION.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TELL US HOW
YOU DID IT.
I TOOK YOUR STATE -- HOW YOU
TOOK YOUR STATE FORWARD EVEN
BUDGET?
THOUGH YOU HAD TO BALANCE YOUR
THANK YOU.
IT IS TERRIFIC TO BE ON THE
FLOOR WITH OTHER FORMER
GOVERNORS.
EVEN WHEN WE VOTED ON THE HEALTH
CAR BILL, LET ME TRY TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTION BRIEFLY SO WE CAN
MARE FROM THE -- SO WE CAN HEAR
FROM THE OTHER GOVERNORS.
I BECAME GOVERNOR 30 YEARS AGO,
IN THE EARLY 1980'S.
INFLATION WAS 20%.
HARD TO IMAGINE IN THE EARLY
DAYS WITH THE REAGAN
ADMINISTRATION THEY HAD DRIVEN
UP INTEREST RATES TO 12% TO TRY
TO BRING INFLATION DOWN, SO WE
HAD TERRIBLE TIMES.
AND OF COURSE WE STILL HAD TO
BALANCE OUR BUDGET.
WE HAD TO LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS.
WE HAD TO HAVE THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY COMING IN EQUAL TO THE
AMOUNT COMING OUT.
LET ME TELL ONE STORY OF THE
DIFFERENCE THAT'S MADE IN OUR
STATE AND HOW IT COULD MAKE IN
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THE OTHER DAY IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE THE TENNESSEE CHIEF
HIGHWAY ENGINEER WAS TESTIFYING.
GOVERNOR.
HE WAS THERE WHEN I WAS
HE'S STILL THERE.
ONE OF THE SENATORS, THE
CHAIRMAN SUGGESTED THAT PERHAPS
SOME FLEXIBLE FINANCIAL PLANNING
WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.
IN OTHER WORDS LOANING MONEY FOR
ROADS.
THE STATE OF TENNESSEE TO BORROW
BORROW MONEY.
IT WAS SAID WE DON'T WANT TO
THE STATE OF TENNESSEE HAS ZERO
ROAD DEBT THAT.
ABOUT BROUGHT THE HEARING TO A
HALT BECAUSE SEVERAL SENATORS
HAD NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING.
WE HAVE ZERO ROAD DEBT.
WE USE ALL OF OUR GAS TAX MONEY
TO PAY ROADS.
THAT MEANS WHEN WE HAVE A TOUGH
TIME LIKE WHAOE DID WHEN I
BECAME GOVERNOR, WHEN YOU WERE
GOVERNOR, AS WE DO IN THE
COUNTRY TODAY, IF OUR INTEREST
RATES ARE LOW OR WE WAY KNOW
INTEREST WE CAN USE THAT MONEY
TO GET THROUGH TOUGH TIMES.
A LOT OF THE BUSINESSES AND
FAMILIES TODAY THAT HAVE LESS
DEBT ARE MAKING THEIR WAY
EASILY.
THROUGH THESE TOUGH TIMES MORE
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, ACCORDING TO THE
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET, BY THE YEAR
2020 WOULD BE SPENDING MORE
MONEY ON INTEREST ON THE FEDERAL
DEBT THAN IT WOULD BE ON OUR
NATIONAL DEFENSE.
INTEREST ON THE FEDERAL DEBT
WOULD BE $931 BILLION BY 2021.
WHAT IF THAT MONEY COULD BE PUT
BACK IN OUR POCKETS THROUGH TAX
CUTS OR USED TO SEND A KID TO
COLLEGE?
ONE WAY I WOULD SAY TO THE
SENATOR THAT BALANCING THE
BUDGET HELPS CREATE JOBS IS IF
YOU KEEP YOUR INTEREST PAYMENTS
DOWN, YOU KEEP YOUR TAXES DOWN
AND YOU CAN SPEND YOUR MONEY
WISELY ON THINGS THAT COUNT.
SENATOR
ALEXANDER, YOU RAISE SUCH A
VALID POINT.
IN THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, WE
ROAD DEBT EITHER.
IF WE WANTED TO PAVE A MILE OF
HIGHWAY, WE HAD TO HAVE THE
MONEY IN THE BANK OR IT DID NOT
GET DOWN.
THE OTHER ADVANTAGE OF THAT IS
WHEN THE ECONOMY STARTED TO
LIFT, YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY
BACK ALL THAT MONEY THAT YOU HAD
BORROWED.
YOU WERE READY TO TAKE OFF.
AND SO I WOULD JUST HAVE TO
IMAGINE IN TENNESSEE, LIKE
NEBRASKA, OUR ECONOMIC RECOVERY
WAS EASIER TO ACHIEVE.
I HAD THE PLEASURE OF SERVING AS
GOVERNOR OF NEBRASKA WHEN
SENATOR HOAGLAND WAS GOVERNOR OF
NORTH TKAFPBLGT THE STATE OF
NORTH DAKOTA IS MOST OFTEN
RECOGNIZED AS ONE OF THE BEST
MANAGED STATES IN THE COUNTRY,
RUNS A SURPLUS WITH SOME OF THE
LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATES OF ANY
STATE IN THE COUNTRY.
YET, YOU SUFFERED THROUGH SOME
OF THE SAME PROBLEMS WE HAD
AFTER THE DOT-COM COLLAPSED.
SENATOR HOEVEN, COULD YOU TALK
TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THE
BALANCED BUDGET PROVISIONS IN
YOUR CONSTITUTION REQUIRED YOU
AND THE LEGISLATORS TO MANAGE
THE STATE.
H.O.V. THANK YOU, SENATOR
JOHANNS.
IT IS AN HONOR TO BE HERE AND
ALSO WITH THE GOOD SENATOR FROM
TENNESSEE, LAMAR ALEXANDER,
GREAT TO BE HERE WITH YOU, AS
WELL AS SENATOR ARE RISCH FROM
IDAHO.
IT IS WONDERFUL TO DRAW ON OUR
COMMON EXPERIENCE.
I ALSO HAVE TO MENTION THAT THE
PRESIDING OFFICER IN THE SENATE
TODAY, SENATOR SHAHEEN, IS A
FORMER GOVERNOR AS WELL, AND SO
WE HAVE THAT COMMON SHARED
EXPERIENCE, ACTUALLY HERE ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
AND IT IS AN HONOR AND A
PLEASURE TO BE HERE WITH YOU AND
TALK ABOUT THIS MATTER THAT IS
SO VERY IMPORTANT, PARTICULARLY
AS WE FACE THE NEED TO DO
SOMETHING ON THE DEBT CEILING.
THIS ISSUE OF DEALING WITH A
BALANCED BUDGET IS OF PARAMOUNT
IMPORTANCE FOR OUR ENTIRE
COUNTRY, AND YOUR LEAD-IN IS
EXACTLY RIGHT.
WE SERVED TOGETHER AS GOVERNORS.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE TRUTH
IS I WOULD CALL YOU BECAUSE YOU
WERE ELECTED GOVERNOR BEFORE I
WAS FOR ADVICE AND ASK YOU ABOUT
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WERE
WORKING ON IN NEBRASKA AND OUR
COMMON.
STATES SHARE MANY THINGS IN
ONE YOU MENTIONED, A LOW
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE.
THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN OUR
STATE IS 3.3%.
I CONTRIBUTE THAT TO BUILDING A
PRO-GROWTH, PRO-JOBS ENVIRONMENT
THAT STIMULATES PRIVATE
CREATION.
INVESTMENT, STIMULATES JOB
AS YOU MENTIONED SO VERY
ACCURATELY, JOBS ARE CREATED BY
GOVERNMENT.
THE PRIVATE SECTOR, NOT BY
SO YOU HAVE GOT TO CREATE THAT
ENVIRONMENT THAT STIMULATES AND
ENCOURAGES AND HELPS, YOU KNOW,
CREATE A FORUM FOR THAT PRIVATE
INVESTMENT.
THAT'S HOW WE CREATE JOBS AND
GET THIS ECONOMY GROWING.
ON THE ONE SIDE WE HAVE GOT TO
HAVE A GROWING ECONOMY, WHICH WE
DON'T HAVE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
RIGHT NOW, AND ON THE OTHER SIDE
IS WE HAVE GOT TO LIVE WITHIN
OUR MEANS.
WE HAVE GOT TO CONTROL OUR
SPENDING.
AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS A
RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTROL ITS
SPENDING JUST LIKE THE STATES
DO, JUST LIKE BUSINESSES DO,
LIKE FAMILIES.
LOOK, WE HAVE GOT TO NOT ONLY
BALANCE THIS BUDGET, WE HAVE GOT
TO LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS ON AN
ONGOING BASIS.
49 OF THE 50 STATES HAVE HERETO
A CONSTITUTIONAL OR A STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT THAT THEY BALANCE
THEIR BUDGET EVERY YEAR.
SEVER SINGLE GOVERNOR HERE WITH
US THAT I HAD TO BALANCE THEIR
BUDGET EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
IT WAS RECENTLY REPORTED THAT 46
STATES ARE ALREADY ON TRACK TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEIR BUDGET IS
FISCAL YEAR.
ON BALANCE BY THE END OF THE
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO
DO THE SAME THING.
LOOK AT OUR SITUATION RIGHT NOW.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKES IN
$2.2 TRILLION IN REVENUES.
WE TAKE IN $2.2 TRILLION IN
REVENUES, BUT WE SPEND $3.7
TRILLION.
THAT'S A $1.5-PLUS TRILLION
DEFICIT EVERY YEAR, AND THAT'S
ROLLING UP TO A DEBT THAT IS NOW
CLOSING IN ON $14.5 TRILLION.
WE'VE GOT TO ADDRESS THIS --
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE CAN
HAND OFF TO FUTURE GENERATIONS.
AND SO OUR MESSAGES -- OUR
MESSAGE TO THE ADMINISTRATION
IS, YOU'RE MAKING IT WORSE.
WE HAVE GOT TO START LIVING
WITHIN OUR MEANS.
WE CAN'T KEEP SPENDING AND THEN
BORROWING AND THEN RAISING TAXES
AND EXPECT TO HAVE AN ECONOMY
THAT GROWS AND A GOVERNMENT THAT
LIVES WITHIN ITS MEANS, AND
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE'RE HERE
TODAY TALKING ABOUT THE NEED FOR
THIS BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.
AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, IF
YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THE BALANCED
BUDGET AMENDMENT GETS EVERYONE
INVOLVED, BOTH NOW AND FOR THE
FUTURE, BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE
PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES OF
CONGRESS WITH A TWO-THIRDS
MAJORITY.
THAT HAS TO BE DONE ON A BMENT
BASIS.
AND THEN IT GOES OUT TO THE
STATES.
AND THREE FAMILY FARM FOURTHS OF
THE STATES HAVE TO RATIFY IT FOR
IT TO BECOME PART OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
THAT ET GOES EVERYBODY INVOLVED
IN DOING EXACTLY -- THAT GETS
EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN DOING
EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO AND
THAT'S GETTING ON TOP OF THIS
DEFICIT AND THIS DEBT.
BOTH NOW AND FOR THE FUTURE
GENERATIONS.
AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK THE GOOD
SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA FOR
HOLDING THIS COLLOQUY AND FOR
INVITING ME TO BE PART OF IT
WITH MY FELLOW GOVERNORS.
I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU.
WELL, LET ME
THANK SENATOR HOEVEN.
I NOTICE WE ARE JOINED BY
ANOTHER FORMER GOVERNOR.
THIS FORMER GOVERNOR IS PART OF
THE CLASS -- WE WERE BOTH
COLLECTED TO THE SENATE AT THE
SAME TIME, SO WE'RE BOTH PART OF
THE SAME CLASS.
BUT SENATOR RIRKS AT ONE POINT
IN -- BUT SENATOR RISCH, AT ONE
POINT IN YOUR CAREER, YOU SERVED
AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
IDAHO.
YOU HAD FINANCIAL RESTRICTIONS
BALANCED BUDGET.
JUST LIKE WE DID IN TERMS OF A
HOW WERE YOU ABLE TO DEAL WITH
IMPORTANT PRIORITIES WHILE
BALANCING THE BUDGET AND
BRINGING YOUR LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS ALONG IN ACCOMPLISHING
THAT?
COULD YOU TALK US TO A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT THAT TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
I AM HONORED TO BE HERE WITH THE
OTHER FORMER GOVERNORS.
WE -- THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF US
ON EACH SIDE WHO HAVE HAD THE
HONOR AND PRIVILEGE OF SERVING
THEIR STATES AS THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE, AND SO IT IS A REAL
HONOR TO BE HEEMPLET AND I BRING
THAT EXPERIENCE WITH ME AND I
THINK EVERY ONE OF US BRINGS
THAT EXPERIENCE WITH US.
I NOT ONLY BRING THAT EXPERIENCE
BUT I DID ALMOST THREE DECADES
IN THE IDAHO STATE SENATE
BALANCING A BUDGET, AND INDEED I
WAS IN THE LEADERSHIP HAVING TO
DO WHAT THE LEADERSHIP DOES HERE
IN BRINGING THE TWO SIDES
TOGETHER BECAUSE WE HAVE A
BUDGET REQUIREMENT IN THE STATE
OF IDAHO, JUST AS VIRTUALLY
EVERY OTHER STATE DOES.
AND DOES THAT CREATE SOME ANGST
WHEN YOU'RE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OR WHEN YOU ARE A HE IN THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TRYING TO
BALANCE?
OF COURSE IT Z I'M SURE THAT THE
PRESIDING OFFICER WOUND UP WITH
THE SAME THING IN HER GREAT
STATE AS SHE TRIED TO BALANCE
THE BUDGET BECAUSE NO MATTER HOW
ENOUGH.
MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE, IT IS NEVER
AS YOU'VE POINTED OUT, SENATOR
JOHANNS, THAT IT IS A MATTER OF
PRIORITY.
THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
WHAT THE STATES DO -- AND I DEED
WHAT BUSINESS DOZEN, AND INDEED
WHAT FAMILIES DO AROUND THE
KITCHEN TABLE, EITHER FORMALALLY
OR INFORMALLY, THEY ANTICIPATE
HOW MUCH MONEY IS GOING TO COME
IN OVER THE YEAR, SOMETIMES OVER
THE MONTH, SOMETIMES OVER THE
WEEK.
THEY ANTICIPATE HOW MUCH MONEY
IS GOING TO COMEMENT IN AND THEN
PRIORITIES.
THEY SAY, WELL, WE HAVE
WHAT IS OUR FIRST PRIORITY?
WELL, OF COURSE, IN A HOME,
YOU'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO EAT,
YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE UTILITIES
PAID AND A ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD.
THOSE BECOME VERY IMPORTANT TO.
A GOVERNMENT, OBVIOUSLY, IF IT
IS A STATE GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION
IS THE LARGEST EXPENDITURE FOR
FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
VIRTUALLY EVERY STATE.
OBVIOUSLY THE HIGHEST PRIORITY
IS NATIONAL DEFENSE.
BUT YOU MAKE A LIST.
AND THEN WHAT YOU DO IS YOU
ALLOCATE THE MONEY YOU HAVE TO
THAT LIST.
NOW, WHEN YOU'RE DONE, NOBODY
EVER, EVER STANDS UP AND SAYS,
BOY, THAT WENT REALLY WELL.
WE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY.
WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING FUNDED,
WE'RE ABLE TO DO EVERYTHING WE
NOT ABSOLUTELY NOT.
WANT TO.
INDEED -- INDEED AND HERE IN
THIS CITY THIS GOVERNMENT IS
SPENDING $3.8 TRILLION AND I CAN
TELL YOU THERE ISN'T A DAY GOES
BY WHERE WE DON'T GET HIT UP
WITH SOMEBODY SAYING, YOU KNOW,
IT'S NOT ENOUGH.
OUR AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH
MONEY.
WHY, WE CAN'T EVEN -- BLANK --
FILL IF WHATEVER YOU WANT,
WHATEVER AGENCY IT IS.
EVERYBODY TELLS YOU THEY DON'T
HAVE ENOUGH MONEY.
AND, YES, THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE
A BALANCED BUDGET REQUIREMENT
ACKNOWLEDGES A PLAIN, SIMPLE
FACT OF LIFE AND THAT IS THERE
ARE NOT ENOUGH RESOURCES TO DO
EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO DO.
INDIANA DEED, A LOT OF TIMES
THERE -- INDEED, A LOFLT TIMES
THERE ISN'T ENOUGH MONEY TO DO
WHAT YOU WANT TOVMENTD YOU HAVE
TO DO THE BEST YOU CAN WITH WHAT
OF.
WITHOUT A BALANCED BUDGET
AMENDMENT IT BECOMES JUST THE
OPPOSITE OF THAT.
YOU JUST KEEP SPENDING.
PEOPLE SAY TO ME, JIM, YOU HAVE
BEEN IN PUBLIC SERVICE ALL YOUR
ADULT LIFE.
HAS ANYTHING IN WASHINGTON,
D.C., SURPRISED YOU?
AND I SAY, YES.
BUT ONLY ONE THING.
THE STUFF THAT GOES ON HERE
DOESN'T SURPRISE ME AT ALL
EXCEPT THE CAVALIER ATTITUDE
THAT THIS CITY HAS -- AND INDEED
THIS INSTITUTION HAS -- FOR THE
VALUE OF MONEY.
IT JUST ASTOUNDS ME THAT IN THIS
INSTITUTION THEY DON'T STOP
SPENDING MONEY WHEN THEY HIT THE
END OF THE BUDGET OR THINK DON'T
STOP SPENDING MONEY WHEN THEY
HIT THE END OF THE RESOURCES.
THEY STOP SPENDING MONEY WHEN
THEY RUN OUT OF TIME.
THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY SIDE
SIDEBOARD ON HOW MUCH MONEY IS
SPENDING.
WELL, IF YOU LOOK AROUND AND
PEOPLE WILL CRITICIZE ON THIS
AND SAY, OH, YOU FOOLISH
REPUBLICANS, WHAT ARE YOU
AMENDMENT?
TALKING ABOUT, BALANCED BUDGET
WHY, THAT'S REALLY DUMB.
YOU KNOW WHAT I SAY TO THEM?
LOOK AT THE STATES.
LOOK AROUND AT THE STATES.
NOW, THERE ARE TWO, MAYBE THREE
STATES THAT ARE HAVING VERY,
VERY DIFFICULT FINANCIAL
SITUATIONS AND IT IS BECAUSE
THEY EITHER DON'T HAVE A
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT OR
THEY'VE DONE SOME SKULDUGGERY TO
GET AROUND THE BALANCED BUDGET
DEPARTMENT.
EVERY OTHER STATE HAS THEIR
FINANCIAL HOUSE IN ORDER.
HAS IT BEEN PAINFUL?
OF COURSE IT'S BEEN PAINFUL.
IT'S PAINFUL TO EVERYONE WHEN
THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY,
INCLUDING AMERICAN FAMILIES.
BUT THAT'S SIMPLY THE WAY IT IS.
WELL, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WE'RE
HAVING HERE IS THE BASIC
FOUNDATION OF THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS.
PEOPLE WHO SAY THERE'S NO
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REPUBLICANS
AND DEMOCRATS OUGHT TO COME HERE
AND SPEND A DAY HERE.
THEY WOULD FIND THAT
PHILOSOPHICALLY WE ARE
HARD-WIRED VERY DIFFERENTLY,
LIKE TWO BRANDS OF COMPUTERS
TRYING TO TALK TO EACH OTHER.
WE ARE HARD-WIRED DIFFERENTLY.
REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THAT THIS
NATION WAS FOUNDED WITH THE IDEA
THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A LIMITED
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
IT WAS FOUNDED BY PEOPLE WHO
INDEED FEARED A CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT, WHO BY THE WAY THEIR
FEAR, AS WE SEE EVERY DAY NOW,
IS VERY WELL-FOUNDED.
WELL BE IN A LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
WELLWE BELIEVE IN INDIVIDUAL
RESPONSIBILITY.
OF THE STATES.
WE BELIEVE IN THE RESPONSIBILITY
IT IS HARD TO FIND PEOPLE IN
THIS THUNE TOWN THAT ACTUALLY BELIEVE
IN SOVEREIGNTY.
THAT IT WAS THE STATES THAT
FOUNDED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AND KEPT THE LEASH ON IT.
DRAMATICALLY.
THE COURTS HAVE EXPANDED THAT
NEVERTHELESS, THE VISION THAT
THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAD THAT
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAD WHEN
THEY PUT TOGETHER THE COUNTRY
THAT CREATED THE MOST
SUCCESSFUL, THE WEALTHIEST, THE
CULTURE THAT ENJOYED THE BEST
QUALITY OF LIFE THAT ANYONE ON
THE FACE OF THIS PLANET HAS EVER
ENJOYED BEFORE, THIS -- THE
FOUNDING FATHERS SAID, LOOK,
WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A
GOVERNMENT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL TO
GIVE THE INDIVIDUAL THE ABILITY
TO PROSPER, TO GIVE THE
INDIVIDUAL OPPORTUNITY.
THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID.
THEY DIDN'T SIT AROUND THE TABLE
AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT?
WE NEED A NANNY STATE.
WE NEED TO CREATE A GOVERNMENT
THAT'S GOING TO TAKE CARE OF
EVERY AMERICAN FROM THE TIME
THEY'RE BORN UNTIL THE TIME THEY
DIE, JUST LIKE IN EUROPE.
IN EUROPE, THE GOVERNMENT PAYS
FOR YOUR BIRTH.
IN YIEWRNTION THE GOVERNMENT
PAYS FOR YOUR FUNERAL AND INDEED
IT PAYS FOR A WHOLE LOT IN
BETWEEN THERE, INCLUDING EVERY
DIME YOU SPEND AFTER YOU RETIRE.
THAT WAS NOT WHAT AMERICA WAS
FOUNDED TO DO.
HE HAD DID NOT SIT AROUND AND
SAY, HOW CAN WE TAKE CARE OF THE
WHOLE SOCIETY?
THEY SAID, HOW CAN WE DEFEND
THIS COUNTRY, MAKE SURE NO
ENEMIES COME INTO THIS COUNTRY,
MAKE SURE PEOPLE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED?
YES, SOME WILL FAIL.
YES, SOME WILL SUCCEED.
PEOPLE.
YES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE POOR
AND YES WE'RE GOING TO HAVE RICH
PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT A
FREE SOCIETY IS ALL ABOUT.
BUT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO HAVE
THE SAME OPPORTUNITY.
EVERYBODY THAT'S BORN IN THIS
COUNTRY OR BECOMES A NATURALIZED
CITIZEN IN THIS COUNTRY IS GOING
TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SUCCEED IN A GREATER FASHION
THAN ANYONE ON THE FACE OF THIS
PLANET HAS EVER SUCCEEDED
BEFORE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO DO
IT WITHOUT GOVERNMENT
INTERFERENCE.
MY GOODNESS, HOW FAR WE HAVE
COME FROM THOSE DAYS AND NOT IN
A GOOD WAY.
THEY COULDN'T CONCEIVE THAT THEY
NEED ADD BALANCED BUDGET
AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE NUMBERS
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEY'D NEVER
HEARD OF.
THE GUYS SIGNATURE AROUND THE
TABLE, IF YOU SAID, BY THE WAY,
THE COUNTRY IS GOING TO BE OVER
$1 TRILLION IN DEBT SOME DAYS,
THEY'D SAY, WHAT'S $1 TRILLION
ANYWAY?
CONSTITUTION.
SO THEY DIDN'T PUT THAT IN THE
SO THIS ISN'T DIFFICULT TO DO.
IT'S HOW MUCH COMES IN AND HOW
MUCH COMES OUT AND THEY NEED TO
EQUALIZE EACH OTHER.
I'LL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT THAT
OUR TWO PARTIES DON'T UNDERSTAND
EACH OTHER.
AS I SAID, WE'RE HARD-WIRED
DIFFERENTLY AND I HAVE A LOT OF
GOOD FRIENDS ON OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE.
WE HAVE GOOD CONVERSATIONS.
THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW I CAN
POSSIBLY THINK THAT WE COULD
HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET.
AND I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND
HOW THEY THINK THIS WE CAN SPEND
OURSELVES INTO PROCESS IS
PARITY.
WE ARE INDEED HARD-WIRED
DIFFERENTLY THAN EACH OTHER.
BUT I WATCHED ONE OF THE LEADERS
THE OTHER DAY COLT OUT HERE ON
THE FLOOR -- COME OUT HERE ON
THE FLOORED AND HE WAS CARING ON
ABOUT HOW BAD THE BALANCED
BUDGET WAS.
HE SAID IT WOULD BE AN ADMISSION
OF THE FAILURE OF THIS
INSTITUTION TO BE ABLE TO DO ITS
JOB.
IT WOULD BE ABDICATING OUR
ABILITY TO DO OUR JOB.
WELL, LOOK AROUND.
WE ARE $14.3 TRILLION IN DEFNLT DEBT.
YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
THINK WE'RE DOING OUR JOB WHEN
WE'RE AT $14.3 TRILLION IN DEBT?
AND NOW DEBATING ADDING ANOTHER
$2.4 TRILLION TO DO THAT?
IF YOU COME HERE AND YOU SPEND A
LITTLE BIT OF TIME HERE, YOU
WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THIS
INSTITUTION CANNOT BUDGET AND DO
SO RESPONSIBLY.
GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, IT WILL
SPEND AND SPEND AND SPEND AND
THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE CHANGED
IS IF WE HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET
PROVISION IN THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION JUST LIKE VIRTUALLY
EVERY STATE IN AMERICA
HAS.
WE'RE GOING UPSIDE-DOWN AT THE
RATE OF $4 BILLION TO $A BILLION
A DAY.
WE'RE BORROWING NEW MONEY.
A DAY.
THAT'S $4 BILLION TO $5 BILLION
THAT'S ABOUT FOUR HOURS FOR THE
STATE OF IDAHO.
THIS CAN'T GO ON AND THE ONLY
WAY TO FIX IT IS WITH A BALANCED
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIREMENT
THAT, YES, PUTS A NEW RULE IN
PLACE, AND YOU NEED RULES, YOU
NEED SIDEBOARDS WHEN IT COMES TO
SPENDING MONEY.
I WANT TO THANK YOU, SENATOR,
FOR PROVIDING US WITH THIS
OPPORTUNITY, THOSE OF US WHO'VE
ACTUALLY LIVED IN THE REAL WORLD
WHERE YOU COULDN'T PRINT MONEY,
YOU COULDN'T BORROW THE KIND OF
MONEY THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
HERE, WHERE YOU HAD TO MAKE
RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS.
AND IT'S TIME THAT THIS
GOVERNMENT DID THAT.
AND THE ONLY WAY IT'S GOING TO
DO THAT, REGARDLESS OF THE
FLOWERY SPEECHES THAT ARE GIVEN
DURING CAMPAIGNS OF, OH, SEND
NOTICE WASHINGTON, I'LL TAKE
CARE OF THIS, I'LL SEE THAT THEY
BALANCE THEIR BUDGET, I WON'T
OVERSPEND, THEY COME HERE AND
THEY DO IT.
THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS
TO BALANCE THE BUDGET.
NOW, WE -- WE CAN'T -- TO HAVE A
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION.
WE CAN'T DO THIS.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE TO DO
THIS.
WE CAN VOTE TO ASK THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD
HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
CONSTITUTION?
TO THE UNITED STATES
WELL, LET'S FIND OUT.
LET'S FIND OUT.
THERE CAN'T BE ANYTHING WRONG
WITH GIVING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
THE ABILITY TO DO IT.
IT TAKES THREE-FOURTHS OF THE
STATES TO RATIFY THIS.
LET'S GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY.
LET'S HAVE THE DEBATE.
LET'S PASS THIS AND GIVE IT TO
THE STATES AND SEE IF -- SEE IF
THEY DO THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR.
I APPRECIATE OPPORTUNITY TO
PARTICIPATE.
A SENATOR: LET ME WRAP UP THIS
COLLOQUY THIS MORNING BY
THANKING MY COLLEAGUES, EACH ONE
OF THEM, FOR THEIR COMMENTS.
GOVERNORS ARE
PRACTICAL PEOPLE.
WE HAVE TO BE.
WE HAVE NO CHOICE.
IF JOBS ARE GOING TO BE CREATED
IN OUR STATES, WE MUST LEAD THAT
EFFORT.
NOT BY JAW BONING AND INDICTING
THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY BUT BY
CREATING THE ATMOSPHERE THAT
CREATES THOSE JOBS.
IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A
BALANCED BUDGET, WE MUST LEAD
THAT EFFORT AT THE STATE LEVEL.
AND EVERY GOVERNOR THAT HAS HAD
AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THIS
MORNING IN THIS COLLOQUY HAS
MADE THAT POINT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN OUR
LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS WERE OVER,
WE HAD TO BE ABLE TO TELL THE
PEOPLE OF OUR GREAT STATES WE
PASSED A BUDGET, THAT THE BUDGET
WAS, IN FACT, BALANCED, AND FOR
SOME OF US, THAT WE DID NOT
BORROW ANY MONEY WHATSOEVER TO
GET THAT JOB DONE.
WE COULD LEARN SOMETHING IN
WASHINGTON FROM THAT.
THIS IS NOT A RADICAL IDEA.
ALL OF THE RHETORIC THAT WE HAVE
HEARD ABOUT WHAT A RADICAL,
CRAZY IDEA THIS IS, WELL, HOW
COULD IT BE SO RADICAL IF 49 OUT
OF 50 STATES HAVE DECIDED THAT
THIS IS THE RIGHT COURSE AND THE
RIGHT DIRECTION FOR THEIR STATE
GOVERNMENT?
I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT ANYTHING
LESS OF THEIR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT, AND AS SENATOR RISCH
HAS JUST POINTED OUT, WHY WOULD
WE NOT GIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CAST THEIR
VOTE ON HOW BEST TO MANAGE THEIR
GOVERNMENT, THEIR GOVERNMENT?
WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
YIELD THE FLOOR AND I NOTICE THE
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.
MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD
ASK TO DISPENSE WITH THE CALLING
OF THE QUORUM.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD
ALSO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
AARON HERNANDEZ OF MY STAFF BE
GRANTED THE PRIVILEGES OF THE
FLOOR FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS
WEEK.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE TODAY TO
TALK ABOUT THE REGRETTABLE AND
AVOIDABLE LOOMING DEBT CRISIS.
AVOIDABLE IF WE TAKE APPROPRIATE
AND TIMELY STEPS BEGINNING TODAY
AND CONTINUING OVER THE NEXT FEW
DAYS, AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK TO
GET OUR ECONOMY OUT FROM UNDER A
PROTRACTED AND PAINFUL RECESSION
AND ON A MORE ROBUST PATH OF
GROWTH AND JOB CREATION, NOT
HAVING AN AGREEMENT TO PAY OUR
CONSEQUENCES.
COUNTRY'S BILLS HAS SEVERE
DEFAULTING COULD MEAN NOT ONLY A
POTENTIAL STOPPAGE OF SOCIAL
SECURITY AND VETERANS BENEFITS
CHECKS, BUT EVEN MORE WORRYING
THAN WHAT HAPPENS TO THE
BONDHOLDERS AND THE MIDDLE CLASS
IS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS
COULD PUSH US BACK INTO NOT ONLY
A SEVERE RECESSION BUT A
WORLDWIDE ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE.
WE LOOK ACROSS AT EUROPEAN
GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE STRUGGLING
WITH SOVEREIGN DEBT CRISES AND I
THINK ONE OF THE LESSONS THAT WE
SHOULD HAVE LEARNED FROM THE
EVENTS OF 2008 AND PARTICULARLY
THAT FALL IS THAT A LACK OF
CONFIDENCE AND A VULNERABILITY
IN ONE PART OF THE GLOBAL
FINANCIAL SYSTEM CAN BE
MAGNIFIED DRAMATICALLY BECAUSE
OF CONNECTIONS AND
INTERRELATIONSHIPS AND PRODUCING
A WORLDWIDE CRISIS.
SO THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE
TO ADDRESS.
A FAILURE TO ACT WOULD CRIPPLE
OUR GOVERNMENT ALMOST
IMMEDIATELY.
IN AUGUST, IF THERE'S NOT A
SOLUTION, IT IS ESTIMATED THAT
SPENDING IN THE ECONOMY COULD
CONTRACT IMMEDIATELY FROM
ANYWHERE TO 40% TO 50%, AND THAT
MEANS THAT THE U.S. ECONOMY
WOULD BE HIT WITH A LOSS OF
ABOUT $134 BILLION OR ABOUT 10%
AUGUST.
OF G.D.P. FOR THE MONTH OF
AND A 10% LOSS TO AUGUST'S
G.D.P. WOULD BRING OUR CREDIT
MARKETS TO A STANDSTILL AND
COULD LEAD TO THE LOSS OF
ADDITIONAL JOBS.
ONE OF THE IRONIES OF THIS
DEBATE IS THAT THE PROPOSAL BY
SOME ON THE OTHER SIDE TO SIMPLY
NOT PASS A CREDIT LIMIT
LEGISLATION WOULD BE TOLERABLE.
IN FACT, IT WOULD BE
CATASTROPHIC.
IN TERMS OF THE
VERY OBJECTIVE THAT THEY'RE
URGING, CONTROLLING THE DEFICIT.
AS PEOPLE DROP OUT OF THE LABOR
FORCE, THEY REQUIRE MORE
BENEFITS, THEY ARE NOT ABLE
LEGALLY OR IN POSITION TO PAY
THE TAXES THEY'RE PAYING AS THEY
WORK.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT'S
BEEN ESTIMATED THAT FOR EVERY 1%
INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES --
AND IF WE DEFAULT, INTEREST
RATES WILL GO UP ON OUR
TREASURIES -- WE WILL OVER 10
YEARS ACCUMULATE $1.3 TRILLION
IN ADDITIONAL DEFICIT.
SO IN ONE FELL SWOOP, THE
DEFICIT HAWKS WHO ARE SCREAMING
SO LOUDLY TODAY COULD PUT US ON
AN EVEN WORSE DEFICIT
TRAJECTORY.
WE KNOW THE JOB OF BRINGING THIS
BUDGET INTO ALIGNMENT IS NOT
GOING TO BE AN EASY ONE.
IT INVOLVES MANY TRADEOFFS, SOME
OF WHICH ARE LIKELY TO BE VERY
UNPOPULAR.
ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUES WHO
SERVED HERE IN THE 1990'S UNDER
PRESIDENT CLINTON, WE TOOK SOME
TOUGH VOTES.
THERE WAS NOT ONE VERY MUCH REPUBLICAN
VOTE IN SUPPORT OF US IN 1993
AND 1994 WHEN WE BEGAN THE
PROCESS OF BALANCING THE BUDGET.
IT TAKES TIME.
IT TAKES DIFFICULT VOTES.
IT WAS DONE IN THE 1990'S, AND
AS WE ALL KNOW, WHEN PRESIDENT
GEORGE W. BUSH ASSUMES OFFICE,
WE WERE LOOKING NOT AT MASSIVE
DEFICITS, WE WERE LOOKING AT A
POTENTIAL SERVICE OF -- SURPLUS
OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER A
TEN-YEAR PERIOD.
BUT WITH THE PROGRAMS THAT HE,
AGAIN, TOGETHER WITH HIS
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES EMBRACED
OF SIGNIFICANT TAX CUTS, OF
EXPANSION OF ENTITLEMENTS,
PART-D MEDICARE THAT WAS NOT
PAID FOR, THAT WAS PUT ON THE
CREDIT CARD, LITERALLY, AND TWO
UNFUNDED WARS, WE ARE SITTING
TODAY WITH THIS HUGE DEFICIT.
FRANKLY, THIS PROPOSAL TO RAISE
THE DEBT LIMIT IS VERY SIMPLY
PAYING FOR WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH
AND REPUBLICAN CONGRESSES DID
SEVERAL YEARS AGO, AND YET WE
FIND MY COLLEAGUES ON THIS SIDE
SAYING OH, WE CAN'T DO THAT.
WE CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANT
REDUCTIONS IN PROGRAMS THAT ARE
VITAL TO AMERICANS.
WE HAVE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED.
WE DID THAT IN THE CONTINUING
RESOLUTION THAT'S COVERING THIS
YEAR'S FUNDING, THAT WE CAN AND
WILL MAKE DIFFICULT CUTS, WE CAN
REDUCE SPENDING, BUT WE HAVE TO
DO IT IN A MEASURED WAY, AND THE
OTHER THING WE HAVE TO DO IS
RECOGNIZE THAT ANY SOLUTION,
JUST AS IT WAS IN THE 1990'S,
WILL REQUIRE REVENUES AS WELL AS
EXPENDITURES.
THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THE
ARITHMETIC WILL WORK.
I FIND IT SOMETIMES IRONIC WHEN
I GO AROUND AND TALK, OH, IF WE
DON'T SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, YOU'RE
PUTTING ALL OF THIS BURDEN ON
OUR GRANDCHILDREN.
WHERE WAS THAT SPIRIT WHEN THE
PRESIDENT CUT TAXES AND BEGAN TO
ELIMINATE A SURPLUS THAT WOULD
GRANDCHILDREN?
HAVE BENEFITED OUR
WHERE WAS THAT SPIRIT WHEN THE
PRESIDENT DECIDED TO ENGAGE IN
TWO MAJOR WARS BUT NOT PAY FOR
THEM?
WHERE WAS THAT SPIRIT WHEN THE
PRESIDENT DECIDED THAT HE WAS
GOING TO EXPAND ENTITLEMENTS AND
NOT PAY FOR THEM?
VERY FEW OF MY COLLEAGUES ON
THIS SIDE WERE WORRYING ABOUT
GRANDCHILDREN THEN.
WELL, WE DO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT
OUR GRANDCHILDREN.
THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO START
TAKING THE TOUGH STEPS TODAY.
WE HAVE TO START MAKING THE
SACRIFICES THAT WILL GET OUR
BUDGET IN ORDER.
THOSE SACRIFICES ARE NOT SIMPLY
IN CUTTING PROGRAMS THAT ARE SO
VITAL, NOT ONLY TO SO MANY
AMERICANS BUT ARE SO VITAL TO
OUR CONTINUED ECONOMIC GROWTH.
I AM SURE, I AM SURE EVERYONE
HERE WILL SAY THEY HAVE
IMPORTANT HIGHWAY PROJECTS IN
THEIR STATE.
THERE ARE IMPORTANT
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN THE
STATES.
DO WE SACRIFICE THOSE PROJECTS?
IF WE DO, THEN WE SACRIFICE OUR
ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY, WE
SACRIFICE OUR PRODUCTIVITY, AND
GUESS WHAT?
WE GIVE THE RESULTS TO OUR
GRANDCHILDREN, A DECREPIT
INFRASTRUCTURE, INABILITY TO BE
COMPETITIVE IN A VERY, VERY
COMPETITIVE GLOBAL ECONOMY.
FORWARD.
SO WE HAVE TO, I THINK, MOVE
WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD TO AVOID
A CATASTROPHE TO THE ECONOMY IF
THE DEBT CEILING IS NOT RAISED
AND ALSO MOVE FORWARD TO BEGIN
TO BALANCE OUR BUDGET IN THE WAY
IT'S BEEN DONE IN THE PAST AND,
FRANKLY, IN THE WAY THAT IT ONLY
CAN BE DONE, AND THAT IS THAT WE
HAVE TO START BEGINNING TODAY TO
MAKE THE SACRIFICES AND MAKE THE
TOUGH CHOICES THAT WILL, IN
FACT, PROVIDE A BETTER FUTURE
FOR OUR GRANDCHILDREN.
WE HAVE DONE IT IN THE PAST.
WE -- IN 1993 AND 1994, WE TOOK
TOUGH STEPS AS I MENTIONED
BEFORE TO BEGIN TO BALANCE THE
BUDGET.
AND IN 1997, WITH A REPUBLICAN
CONGRESS AND DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENT, WE TOOK ADDITIONAL
STEPS.
WE CAN DO IT AND WE MUST DO IT.
NOW, THE IDEA THAT WE ARE GOING
TO DEFAULT IS, I THINK,
DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE, BUT STILL
THERE ARE THOSE OUT THERE ON THE
OTHER SIDE THAT ARE SAYING THEY
WILL NOT VOTE FOR RAISING THE
CREDIT LIMIT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE
OR FORM.
I THINK THAT'S IRRESPONSIBLE.
I THINK WE HAVE TO BE
RESPONSIBLE.
WE HAVE SET UP BEFORE, WE HAVE
TAKEN TOUGH VOTES.
WE HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN.
AND FAILING TO DO THAT JUST PUTS
A HUGE BURDEN ON THE MIDDLE
CLASS.
THE WEALTHIEST AMONGST US MAY BE
ABLE TO NEGOTIATE THROUGH THE
VAGARIES OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN
AFTER A CREDIT DEFAULT BY THE
UNITED STATES, BUT FOR SOCIAL
SECURITY RECIPIENTS, FOR
MILITARY RETIREES, FOR THOSE
PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR THE
BASIC SERVICES OF GOVERNMENT,
TRANSIT TO GET TO WORK, THE
ABILITY TO GET ON A PLANE, WHO
IS GOING TO BE MANNING THE
T.S.A. POST IF THE GOVERNMENT
CANNOT ESSENTIALLY PAY ITS
DEBTS?
ALL THESE ISSUES HAVE TO BE
CONSIDERED.
NOW, WE HAVE TO, AS I SAID, TALK
ABOUT REVENUES, TOO.
IT IS ASTOUNDING THAT PEOPLE
WOULD LITERALLY BE SUGGESTING
THAT WE CUT BACK SOCIAL SECURITY
BENEFITS, WE CUT BACK RETIREMENT
BENEFITS, WE DO ALL THESE THINGS
AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE PROVIDING
ABOUT $4 BILLION IN ANNUAL TAX
INCENTIVES TO THE OIL INDUSTRY,
WHEN THE PRICE OF OIL IS AT
RECORD LEVELS, THEIR PROFITS ARE
AT RECORD LEVELS.
THESE ARE A HOST OF TAX
PROVISIONS THAT DON'T MAKE US
ANY MORE PRODUCTIVE.
IN FACT, ONE MIGHT ARGUE THEY
DON'T ENCOURAGE EMPLOYMENT HERE
IN THE UNITED STATES EVEN.
IN FACT, ONE COULD MAKE THE
SUGGESTION AT LEAST THAT THE WAY
WE SET UP THE SYSTEM, IT MIGHT
INDEED ENCOURAGE EMPLOYMENT
OVERSEAS, AND THEN WE PATRIOT
RATE -- AND THEN REPATRIATE THE
PROFITS HERE.
WELL, THAT MIGHT BE FINE FOR THE
BIG COMPANIES AND THE
EXECUTIVES, BUT WHAT ABOUT
AMERICANS WHO ARE LOOKING FOR
JOBS?
WHAT ABOUT AMERICANS WHO ARE
LOOKING JUST TO GET BY?
SO WE ALSO HAVE TO RECOGNIZE
THAT SOME OF THE PROPOSALS WE
HAVE MADE -- IN FACT, ALL OF
THEM AS THE PRESIDENT HAS TALKED
ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO REVENUES
WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE WE ARE STILL
IN A PERIOD OF VERY ANEMIC
ECONOMIC GROWTH.
THEY WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IN 2013,
BUT THEY WOULD GO TO THAT
LONG-TERM GOAL OF DEFICIT
REDUCTION, WHICH WE CAN ACHIEVE,
BUT IT WILL TAKE TIME JUST AS IT
TOOK TIME IN THE 1990'S.
BUT EVEN THESE PROPOSALS TO
CLOSE LOOPHOLES WHICH ARE IN MY
VIEW VERY DIFFICULT TO DEFEND
AND TO DO SO NOT IMMEDIATELY BUT
SEVERAL YEARS FROM NOW, EVEN
THESE PROPOSALS ARE BEING
RESISTED BY REPUBLICANS.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME
AND I THINK ALSO DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE TO A GROWING NUMBER OF
AMERICANS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.
THEY WANT US TO BE RESPONSIBLE.
THEY WANT US TO BE ABLE TO PAY
OUR DEBTS, AND THEN THEY WANT US
TO GET OUR DEBTS UNDER CONTROL,
AND THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THAT
REQUIRES NOT JUST GOODWILL AND
GOOD WISHES, IT REQUIRES REAL
DIFFICULT CHOICES AND SACRIFICE.
WE'RE SEEING NOW AN ECONOMY THAT
IS RACKING UP HUGE PROFITS FOR
THE INDUSTRY.
THE S&P 50 INDEX OF FINANCIAL
NUMBERS ARE SITTING ON ABOUT
ABOUT $1.1 TRILLION IN CASH.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE INDICATED
SIMILARLY THAT NONFINANCIAL
ABOUT $1.9 TRILLION IN CASH
BUSINESSES HAVE ABOUT
DEFINED AS LIQUID ASSETS.
ACCUMULATED BY CORPORATIONS.
RECORD PROFITS ARE BEING
ALL OF THIS IS GOOD, BUT IT'S
MUCH BETTER IF THOSE CASH
RESOURCES AND PROFITS ARE PUT
BACK INTO THE AMERICAN ECONOMY
IN TERMS OF CREATING JOBS.
AND THAT SHOULD BE PART OF OUR
EFFORT, TOO.
NOT SIMPLY REDUCING THE DEFICIT.
REDUCING IT IN A WAY THAT WE
GROW JOBS HERE IN THE UNITED
STATES, AND THAT IS I THINK AT
THE HEART ALSO OF WHAT THE
PRESIDENT IS TALKING ABOUT IN
TERMS OF HIS EFFORTS.
WE ARE ON THE VERGE OF TOUGH
VOTES AND TOUGH CHOICES, AND I
HOPE WE MAKE THOSE TOUGH CHOICES
AND TOUGH VOTES.
WE DO HAVE TO PAY OUR DEBTS, I
BELIEVE, BUT THEN WE HAVE TO GET
OUR DEBTS UNDER CONTROL.
WE HAVE DONE IT.
WE DID IT IN THE 1990'S, AND I
WOULD ARGUE WITHOUT SOME OF THE
POLICIES THAT WERE
ENTHUSIASTICALLY EMBRACED BY
MANY HERE TODAY THAT ARE TALKING
TO SACRIFICE TO THE MIDDLE CLASS
BUT NO SACRIFICE FOR THE VERY
WEALTHY, WE WOULD NOT BE IN THE
SAME POSITION WE ARE TODAY.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I BELIEVE
WE'RE AT A VERY, VERY CRITICAL
MOMENT.
WE HAVE TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE BY
AUGUST 2.
I HOPE WE CAN DO THAT.
I HOPE IT WILL TURN ON THE SAME
KIND OF SENSIBLE, BALANCED
APPROACH THAT WE ADOPTED
PREVIOUSLY IN THE 1990'S.
SO WE HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND THINK
IN TERMS OF RESTORING OUR
FINANCIAL HOUSE AND THEN GETTING
OUR AMERICAN PEOPLE BACK TO
WORK, AND IF WE DO THAT, I THINK
WE WILL FULFILL NOT ONLY THE
BEST HOPES AND WISHES OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE BUT THEIR STRONG
DESIRES.
WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD REQUEST UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE EIGHT
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS FOR
COMMITTEES TO MEET DURING
TODAY'S SESSION OF THE SENATE.
THEY HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE
MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADERS.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
THESE REQUESTS BE AGREED TO AND
THAT THESE REQUESTS BE PRINTED
IN THE RECORD.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MR. PRESIDENT, WITH
THAT, I NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A
QUORUM.
AND THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
THE
SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE QUORUM CALL BE
SUSPENDED.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. PRESIDENT, ARE
WE IN MORNING BUSINESS AT THIS
POINT?
WE ARE.
MR. PRESIDENT, WE
KNOW AS MEMBERS OF THE SENATE
THAT WE ARE FACING A DEADLINE OF
AUGUST 2 FOR THE EXTENSION OF
OUR DEBT CEILING.
THE DEBT CEILING IS THE
AUTHORITY CONGRESS GIVES TO THE
PRESIDENT TO BORROW MONEY.
NOW, YOU SAY TO YOURSELF, WELL,
PLEASE, STOP BORROWING.
WE'RE ALREADY DEEP IN DEBT, BUT
WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS BORROWING
MONEY TO PAY FOR ARE THINGS THAT
WE HAVE ALREADY SPENT,
COMMITMENTS WE HAVE ALREADY
MADE.
LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
VOTING TO CONTINUE THE WAR IN
AFGHANISTAN COST $10 BILLION A
MONTH.
ENOUGH.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT MONEY, NOT
WE HAVE TO BORROW 40 CENTS FOR
EVERY DOLLAR WE SPEND.
SO WHEN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SAY
CONTINUE THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN,
AFGHANISTAN, $10 BILLION A
MONTH, THEY ARE SAYING WE'RE
PREPARED TO BORROW $4 BILLION
EVERY SINGLE MONTH TO KEEP THAT
PROMISE.
SO THE PRESIDENT COMES TO US
ABOUT ONCE A YEAR AND SAYS I
NEED MORE AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE
TO BORROW MONEY TO PAY FOR THE
DO.
THINGS THAT YOU HAVE ASKED US TO
THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.
NOW, NOBODY LIKES TO VOTE FOR
THE DEBT CEILING BECAUSE IT IS
SO WIDELY MISUNDERSTOOD.
MOST PEOPLE BASICALLY SAY I
DON'T WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH
IT.
I HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF THAT IN MY
POLITICAL CAREER, BUT THE FACT
IS MOST OF US LOOK OVER OUR
SHOULDERS AT THE FINAL VOTE AND
SAY WE BETTER PASS THIS DARN
THING BECAUSE IF WE DON'T, WE
WILL DEFAULT ON OUR DEBT.
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS LIKE
OUR CREDIT SCORE.
GUESS WHAT?
WE HAVE THE BEST IN THE WORLD.
OF ALL GOVERNMENTS IN THE WORLD,
AAA.
WE HAVE THE BEST.
IT DOESN'T GET ANY BETTER, AND
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE.
AND THAT HAS HELPED US.
IT'S HELPED US NOT ONLY TO
BORROW MONEY AT LOWER INTEREST
COSTS BUT THE FACT THAT OUR
ECONOMY HAS LOOKED -- IS LOOKED
ON AS SO RELIABLE ATTRACTS MORE
BUSINESSES TO OUR COUNTRY.
SO IF ON AUGUST 2 WE DEFAULT ON
OUR DEBT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
OUR HISTORY, OUR CREDIT SCORE IS
GOING TO SUFFER.
THE PEOPLE WHO LOANED US MONEY
ARE GOING TO SAY WE NEVER
DREAMED THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA WOULD FAIL TO MAKE A
DEBT PAYMENT, AND IF THEY ARE
GOING TO FAIL TO MAKE A DEBT
PAYMENT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO RAISE THE INTEREST RATES
BECAUSE THEY ARE RISKIER THAN WE
THOUGHT THEY WERE.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU RAISE THE
INTEREST RATES ON THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA BORROWING
MONEY?
EVERY PERCENTAGE POINT, EVERY
ONE PERCENTAGE POINT ADDS
ADDS $130 BILLION A YEAR TO OUR
NATIONAL DEBT, AND OVER TEN
YEARS, TEN TIMES THAT AMOUNT.
$1.3 TRILLION EVERY TEN YEARS
FOR EVERY SINGLE PERCENTAGE
POINT.
SO IS IT IMPORTANT TO EXTEND THE
DEBT CEILING?
YOU BET IT IS.
OTHERWISE, OUR DEBT GOES UP.
OUR CREDIT RATING GOES DOWN.
AND THERE IS ANOTHER UNFORTUNATE
CONSEQUENCE.
AS THE DEBT OF AMERICA REQUIRES
A HIGHER INTEREST PAYMENT
BECAUSE WE HAVE DEFAULTED,
INTEREST RATES GO UP ALL ACROSS
AMERICA.
IN MONTANA, IN ILLINOIS, IN
EVERY STATE.
PEOPLE WHO ARE BORROWING MONEY
TO RUN A FARM, LIKE OUR
PRESIDING OFFICER, TO BUY A CAR
OR TO BUY A HOUSE WILL PAY MORE
IN INTEREST.
IS THAT A GOOD THING?
OF COURSE NOT.
PARTICULARLY IN A WEAK AND
RECOVERING ECONOMY WITH NINE
MILLION PEOPLE OUT OF WORK --
MAYBE 14 MILLION IF YOU ADD
THOSE WHO ARE ONLY PARTIALLY
EMPLOYED.
14 MILLION PEOPLE OUT OF WORK
AND INTEREST RATES GOING UP.
BUSINESSES DON'T EXPAND AS THEY
SHOULD.
PEOPLE DON'T BUY THINGS, THEY
PUT IT OFF, BECAUSE INTEREST
RATE COSTS ARE THAT MUCH HIGHER.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
DEADLINE IS ABOUT.
THAT'S WHAT THE AUGUST 2
BUT IT'S ABOUT SOMETHING MORE.
IT'S ABOUT THE DEBT OF THIS
NATION, WHICH IS A SERIOUS,
SERIOUS ISSUE.
WE ARE NOW IN A POSITION WHERE,
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE
BORROW 40 CENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR
WE SPEND.
WE BORROW IT FROM AMERICANS WHO
BUY OUR TREASURIES AND
SECURITIES, AND WE BORROW IT
FROM COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD
WHO BUY OUR DEBT.
THE LEADING CREDITOR OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
CHINA.
THE LEADING COMPETITOR OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
CHINA.
PUT THOSE TWO THINGS TOGETHER
AND REALIZE OUR VULNERABILITY AS
OUR DEBT GROWS LARGER AND OUR
INDEBTEDNESS TO COUNTRIES LIKE
CHINA GROWS LARGER.
IT'S NOT A GOOD THING.
PLUS, MY SON, DAUGHTER, MY
GRANDCHILDREN AND YOURS WILL END
UP PAYING THIS DEBT.
THEY'LL PAY IN THEIR LIVES FOR
TODAY.
WHAT WE'RE SPENDING SPENDING -- WHAT WE'RE SPENDING
SOME OF THOSE THINGS WILL
BENEFIT THEM BUT SOME WON'T.
THINGS WE WILL CONSUME THEY WILL
PAY FOR.
THAT'S NOT FAIR.
AND IF WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH
THIS DEBT, THERE IS ONLY ONE
RATIONAL WAY TO DO IT.
ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO,
MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID
APPOINTED ME TO THE
BOWLES-SIMPSON DEFICIT
COMMISSION.
IT WAS PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
COMMISSION.
WE MET FOR TEN MONTHS.
WE CAME UP WITH A CONCLUSION, 18
MEMBERS, 11 OF US VOTED FOR IT,
AND WHAT WE SAID IS IF WE'RE
GOING TO REDUCE THIS DEBT IN A
MEANINGFUL WAY OVER THE NEXT TEN
YEARS, WE NEED TO PUT
EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING ON THE
TABLE.
EVERYTHING.
THAT'S PAINFUL.
IT MEANS PUTTING ON THE TABLE
THINGS THAT I FOUGHT FOR AS A
MEMBER OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE
AND BELIEVE IN AND STILL DO, BUT
WE GOT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THEM.
IS THERE A WAY TO SAVE MONEY?
IS THERE A WAY TO ECONOMIZE?
IS THERE A WAY TO PRESIDENT THE
BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY AND
AMERICA?
SACRIFICE SO THAT IT'S FAIR IN
NOW, THERE ARE SOME WHO SAY, NO,
WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT
EVERYTHING ON THE TABLE.
OUR TALKS HAVE BROKEN DOWN
RECENTLY WITH THE REPUBLICAN
LEADERSHIP OVER WHETHER OR NOT
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES --
UNDERLINE THE WORD "ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES" -- THE WEALTHIEST
IN AMERICA SHOULD PAY MORE IN
TAXES.
THEY SAY NO, NOT A PENNY.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO DEAL
WITH OUR DEBT AND DEFICIT IN A
MEANINGFUL WAY, THAT THOSE WHO
ARE WELL-OFF AND COMFORTABLE IN
THIS GREAT NATION SHOULD HELP
US.
THEY NEED TO SACRIFICE IF WE'RE
ASKING THE SAME OF WORKING
BOARD.
FAMILIES AND EVERYONE ACROSS THE
SO THIS NOTION OF NO REVENUE, NO
TAX INCREASE IS, IN MY MIND,
SHORTSIGHTED AND WON'T LEAD US
TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE.
NOW, WE ALSO HAVE TO PUT
ENTITLEMENTS ON THE TABLE AND
THAT'S WHEN FOLKS ON MY SIDE,
THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF THE
50EU8, START GETTING -- AISLE,
START GETTING NERVOUS.
BUDGET.
WE SAW THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN
WE KNOW WHAT IT DOES TO MEDICARE
AND, FRANKLY, I VOTED AGAINST
THAT.
I WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT ANY TIME
IT'S BROUGHT BEFORE US, BECAUSE
WHAT IT DOES TO MEDI-SCARE TO
DRAMATICALLY CHANGE MEDICARE AS
WE KNOW IT.
FOR ABOUT 40 MILLION AMERICANS,
INSURANCE.
MEDICARE IS THEIR ONLY HEALTH
THESE ARE FOLKS OVER THE AGE OF
65, BY AND LARGE, MANY OF THEM
WITH MEDICAL CONDITIONS WHO ARE
UNINSURABLE OR CERTAINLY CAN'T
BE INSURED AT A PREMIUM RATE
THEY CAN AFFORD TO PAY.
MEDICARE IS THERE FOR THEM AND
HAS BEEN FOR OVER 50 YEARS.
AND SO THE NOTION IN THE HOUSE
REPUBLICAN BUDGET THAT WE WOULD
DOUBLE -- DOUBLE -- ON THE
OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES FOR
MEDICARE RECIPIENTS AND
BENEFICIARIES FROM $,000 --
PARDON ME, UP TO $6,000 A YEAR,
CAN'T DO.
IS JUST SOMETHING MOST PEOPLE
YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE WEALTHY IN
BUT MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT.
YOUR RETIREMENT, IT'S ONE THING,
MANY ARE JUST LIVING PAYCHECK TO
MEAGER SAVINGS.
PAYCHECK ON SOCIAL SECURITY WITH
AND THE NOTION OF SPENDING
$6,000 MORE A YEAR OUT OF POCKET
FOR MEDICARE IS BEYOND THEM.
I REJECT THAT HOUSE REPUBLICAN
BUDGET APPROACH.
ARE THERE WAYS TO SAVE MONEY IN
MEDICARE?
YES.
LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
WE CREATED A MEDICARE
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM AND WE
SAID FINALLY WE'RE GOING TO HELP
PAY THE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS OF
SENIORS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW WHAT,
IF THEY GET THEIR MEDICINE AND
THEY TAKE IT AND THEY'RE WELL,
THEY DON'T GO TO THE HOSPITAL.
AND WHEN THEY DON'T GO TO THE
HOSPITAL, THEIR LIVES ARE BETTER
AND OUR COSTS ARE LOWER.
SO IT'S BETTER TO GIVE THEM THE
MEDICINE THEY NEED AND HELP THEM
PAY FOR IT.
NOW, WE CREATED A PLAN WITH
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE
COMPANIES WRITING THIS PLAN FOR
MEDICARE.
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS UNDER
WHAT MANY OF US THOUGHT WE
IT.
SHOULD DO IS GO A STEP BEYOND
WE SHOULD ALLOW THE MEDICARE
SYSTEM ITSELF TO OFFER A
PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT.
WE SHOULD MODEL IT AFTER THE
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION WHERE
THE V.A. BUYS PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
IN BULK AT DISCOUNT SO THAT OUR
VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES GET
PURCHASES.
THE BENEFIT OF THOSE BULK
WEWE CAN DO THE SAME THING ON
MEDICARE AND THEN LEAVE IT UP TO
INDIVIDUALS ACROSS AMERICA, PICK
THE PLAN YOU WANT.
DO YOU WANT TO GO WITH THE
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE WHEN IT
COMES TO PRESCRIPTION DRUG
BENEFITS?
THAT'S YOUR CHOICE.
DO YOU WANT TO GO WITH THE
MEDICARE BENEFIT?
THAT'S YOUR CHOICE.
THAT CHOICE COULD SAVE US $100
BILLION A YEAR.
THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY.
WE COULD END UP WITH THE SAVINGS
THERE HELPING TO REDUCE OUR
DEFICIT AND NOT COMPROMISE THE
BASIC PROMISE OF MEDICARE
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.
SECURITY.
THE SAME THING IS TRUE IN SOCIAL
NOW, THIS IS WHEN IT GETS VERY
TRICKY AND A LOT OF PEOPLE START
HEADING FOR THE EXITS, BUT HERE
IS THE REALITY.
SOCIAL SECURITY, AS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN, WITH NO CHANGES
WHATSOEVER, WILL MAKE EVERY
PROMISED PAYMENT TO EVERY
BENEFICIARY FOR 25 YEARS.
INCREASE.
WITH AN ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING
YOU CAN'T SAY THAT ABOUT
ANYTHING ELSE IN GOVERNMENT.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS AT THE END OF
25 YEARS?
WELL, UNLESS SOMETHING
INTERVENES, AT THAT POINT, THE
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS DROP
22%.
THAT'S A BIG HIT FOR FOLKS THAT
ARE LIVING ON SOCIAL SECURITY.
SO WHAT CAN WE DO TODAY, 25
YEARS IN ADVANCE, WHAT SMALL
THING CAN WE DO TODAY TO SOCIAL
SECURITY WHICH WILL BUILD UP THE
SOLVENCY AND LIFE OF SOCIAL
SECURITY FOR EVEN MORE YEARS?
THAT'S A -- I THINK THAT'S AN
HONEST CHALLENGE AND WE SHOULD
VIEW IT AS AN HONEST CHALLENGE.
NOT TO ELIMINATE SOCIAL SECURITY
BUT TO SAY TO THE GENERATION OF
YOUNGER WORKERS IN AMERICA, IT'S
GOING TO BE THERE AND YOU'LL BE
DARN LUCKY THAT IT IS THERE
BECAUSE A LOT OF SENIORS TODAY
CAN TELL YOU THE STORY OF THEIR
LIVES PAYING INTO SOCIAL
SECURITY.
THEY NOW RECEIVE THE BENEFITS.
BUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THEIR OTHER
PLANS FOR RETIREMENT?
WELL, THAT LITTLE 401(K), THAT
IRA, THAT S.E.P. PLAN TOOK A HIT
A FEW YEARS AGO, LOST ABOUT 30%
OF ITS VALUE.
AND FOR MANY AMERICANS WITH
PENSION PLANS WHERE THEIR WORK,
SOME OF THOSE COMPANIES WENT OUT
OF BUSINESS AND WALKED AWAY FROM
THOSE PENSION OBLIGATIONS.
SOCIAL SECURITY HAS BEEN THERE.
WE WANT IT TO BE THERE IN THE
FUTURE.
SO WE CAN FIND WAYS TO
STRENGTHEN SOCIAL SECURITY AND
GIVE IT A LONGER LIFE.
WE CAN FIND WAYS TO STRENGTH
ENMEDICARE AND GIVE IT A LONGER
LIFE -- STRENGTHEN MEDICARE AND
GIVE IT A LONGER LIFE AND STILL
KEEP THESE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS.
THAT HAS TO BE PART OF THE
CONVERSATION.
MR. PRESIDENT, I SPENT THE LAST
FEW MONTHS FOLLOWING UP ON THE
BOWLES-SIMPSON DEFICIT
COMMISSION MEETING WITH A NUMBER
OF MY SENATE COLLEAGUES.
THREE --
THREE OFOUS THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE,
THREE OF US ON THE DEMOCRATIC
SIDE AND THREE REPUBLICANS.
AND WE HAVE TRIED TO TAKE THE
BOWLES-SIMPSON PROPOSAL AND PUT
IT INTO LANGUAGE THAT WORKS,
MAKE IT -- MAKE A LAW OUT OF IT
SO THAT IT WORKS.
WELL, WE'VE BEEN AT IT FOR A
LONG TIME AND WE'VE HAD OUR UPS
AND DOWNS.
BACK.
ONE OF OUR MEMBERS LEFT, CAME
IT'S A TOUGH ASSIGNMENT.
IT ISN'T EASY.
AND SOMETIMES EMOTIONS RUN HIGH
BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS OF
GREAT VALUE AND IMPORTANCE THAT
ARE BEING DISCUSSED.
BUT, MR. PRESIDENT, SOMETHING
HAPPENED THIS MORNING THAT WAS
PERHAPS HISTORIC.
WE TOOK OUR PLAN, WHICH STILL IS
SHORT OF COMPLETION, AND WE SAID
SAID -- INVITED EVERY MEMBER OF
THE UNITED STATES SENATE,
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, TO
COME AND LISTEN TO A DESCRIPTION
OF THE PLAN.
AND IF IT'S NOT -- IF I'M NOT
MISTAKEN, SENATOR WARNER'S ON
THE FLOOR, HE'S ON THIS GROUP
ROOM.
WITH ME, 49 SENATORS CAME TO THE
AND YOU KNOW WHAT?
THERE WERE NO FISTFIGHTS, THERE
WERE NO -- THERE WAS NO SWEARING
SWEARING.
INSTEAD, DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS -- DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICAN SENATORS SAT IN THAT
ROOM, 49 OF THEM, LISTENED TO
THE OUTLINE OF THIS GROUP OF SIX
PROPOSAL, AND CAME OUT WITH A
POSITIVE FEESMGHT NOT ALL OF
THEM.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING THEY ALL
SIGNED UP.
I WOULD NEVER EXPECT THAT TO
HAPPEN.
BUT IT IS SIGNIFICANT,
SIGNIFICANT AT THIS MOMENT IN
OUR HISTORY THAT SO MANY FELT
POSITIVE TOWARD WHAT WE WERE
DOING.
I HOPE WE CAN TAKE IT TO ANOTHER
LEVEL, ANOTHER STEP.
IN THE MEANTIME, WE HAVE AN
IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITY.
WE NEED TO EXTEND THE DEBT
CEILING ON AUGUST 2.
WE CANNOT COMPROMISE THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT AND CREDIT
AMERICA.
SCORE OF THE UNITED STATES OF
WE CANNOT LET INTEREST RATES GO
UP AND RAISE OUR DEBT.
WE CANNOT LET INTEREST RATES GO
UP AND KILL THE RECOVERY THAT'S
TAKING PLACE IN THIS ECONOMY BY
KILLING JOBS.
WE NEED TO DO OUR PART HERE.
WE NEED TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM ON
A BIPARTISAN BASIS.
AND I HAPPY TO WE CAN FOLD --
AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN FOLD INTO
THAT AS A CRITICAL ELEMENT A
PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD IN DEALING
WITH OUR DEBT.
SENATOR REID, THE DEMOCRATIC
MAJORITY LEADER, AND SENATOR
McCONNELL, THE REPUBLICAN
MAJORITY LEADER, ARE WORKING
TOGETHER.
AMERICA SHOULD TAKE HEART IN
THAT.
THE FACT THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO
FIND A WAY THROUGH A VERY
DIFFICULT POLITICAL CHALLENGE.
BUT THE CLOCK IS RUNNING AND
WE'VE GOT TO GET IT DONE.
AND TODAY YOU SEE A LARGELY
EMPTY CHAMBER AS WE PREPARE FOR
A DEBATE ON A REPUBLICAN
ALTERNATIVE.
IT'S AN ALTERNATIVE WHICH I WILL
OPPOSE AND SPEAK AGAINST AND
TELL YOU WHY.
IT IS NOT GOING TO PASS.
WE KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO PASS.
BUT WE HAVE SAID TO THE
REPUBLICANS, WE'LL GIVE YOU YOUR
CHANCE TO MAKE YOUR CASE.
THAT'S WHAT -- THAT'S ALL ANY OF
US CAN ASK IN THE UNITED STATES
SENATE.
MY PLEA TO THE REPUBLICAN SIDE
OF THE AISLE IS, LET'S DO THIS
AND DO IT IN A -- IN AN
EFFICIENT, TIME-EFFICIENT
MANNER.
LET'S NOT WASTE TIME.
LET'S TRY ON GET TO A GOOD,
HEALTHY DEBATE ON THIS AND TO A
VOTE AND THEN MOVE TO EXTEND THE
DEBT CEILING ON A BIPARTISAN
BASIS.
IF WE DON'T, IF THE RATING
AGENCIES WHICH DOWNGRADED US
LAST WEEK COME BACK AND HIT US
AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO HURT THIS
ECONOMY AND IT'S GOING TO HURT
THE FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES THAT
COUNT ON US TO MAKE THE RIGHT
AND IMPORTANT DECISIONS ON A
TIMELY BASIS.
SO I URGE MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE, WAGE A DEBATE,
WAGE A SPIRITED DEBATE IN
DEFENSE OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN
AND WE WILL TOO ON THE OTHER
SIDE, BUT LET'S NOT DRAG THIS
OUT FOR DAYS AND DAYS AND WEEKS.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH TIME.
WE'VE GOT TO GET DOWN TO
BUSINESS.
MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR
FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
JUNIOR SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
WILL BE VERY BRIEF BUT I JUST
WANT TO COMMEND MY COLLEAGUE AND