Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
SEVEN TIMES DURING THE LAST
POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION THE
REPUBLICANS HAVE PASSED THE
THING --
Host: DEBT CEILS.
Caller: DEBT CEILING.
SEVEN TIMES.
AND NOTHING WAS SAID.
THEY TOOK THE MONEY, REROUTED
ALL OF THE TAXPAYERS MONEY
STRAIGHT TO THE CREDIT PEOPLE
Host: OKAY.
WHO CONTROLS ALL OF THE MONEY.
I GOT YOUR POINT.
WHY DON'T WE ASK OUR GUEST ABOUT
PAST --
WHETHER IT WAS RAISED IN THE
FOR MORE OF THIS GO TO THE
WEB SITE, C-SPAN.ORG.
THE SENATE IS RETURNING AFTER
PARTY LUNCHES.
THEY HAVE BEEN DEBATING A
NONBINDING MEASURE TO CONTRIBUTE
TO DEFICIT REDUCTION.
SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
THIS BILL BASICALLY MARKED ITS
SPENDING LEVEL TO THE LEVEL
APPROVED BY THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES THAT PASSED
SUBCOMMITTEE, FULL COMMITTEE,
AND ON THE HOUSE FLOOR.
BOTTOM LINE:
FOR -- IT'S BUDGET AUTHORITY
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.
THE BILL COMES IN $1.2 BILLION
BELOW THE PRESIDENT'S SPENDING
REQUEST, $620 MILLION BELOW LAST
YEAR'S ENACTED LEVEL, AND IS
EVEN $2.6 MILLION BELOW THE
HOUSE.
BILL.
THERE ARE NO EARMARKS IN THIS
FEW DETAILS HERE: IRK THE BILL
DOES PROVIDE $128 BILLION TO
SUPPORT OVER 22 MILLION
VETERANS.
THAT'S $182 MILLION IN BUDGET
AUTHORITY DISCRETIONARY BELOW
THE ADMINISTRATION'S REQUEST.
THE BILL PROVIDES $13.7 BILLION
FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
THAT'S ABOUT $1 BILLION BELOW
THE ADMINISTRATION'S Q OR $279
MILLION BELOW THE HOUSE BILL.
OUR SENATE BILL CUTS OR
ELIMINATESELIMINATES 24 SEPARATE PROJECTS,
AND ALL OF THOSE CUT DECISIONS
WERE MADE IN COORDINATION WITH
CHAIRMAN LEVIN AND RANKING
MEMBER McCAIN FROM THE DRAFT
SENATE ARMED SERVICES BILL SO
THAT APPROPRIATIONS AND
AUTHORIZATION ARED UP.
WE ALSO COMPLETELY DENIED
FUNDING FOR THE BUILDING OF A
NEW FACILITY TO HOUSE THE
CURRENT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
VETERANS CLAIMS.
THE BILL ALSO LAYS THE POLICY
GROUNDWORK FOR MAKING FURTHER
SPENDING REDUCTIONS IN OUT YEARS
FOR OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
POTENTIAL REQUESTS FOR FUNDING
IN SOUTH KOREA, GERMANY, AND
BAHRAIN.
IN SHORT, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS
BILL SHOULD MOVE FORWARD, THAT
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
SHOULD BEGIN ITS REGULAR WORK.
AND BECAUSE THIS IS A UNANIMOUS
BIPARTISAN PRODUCT FROM THE
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS BILL AND
IT MARKS TO THE HOUSE LEVEL, I
URGE MEMBERS TO SUPPORT CLOTURE
ON A VOTE THAT WE EXPECT
TOMORROW MORNING.
WITH THAT, I'D YIELD BACK,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
CAPITAL MICHAEL K. LYNCH, U.S.
ARMY AVIATION OFFICER WHOSE
CURRENTLY SERVING AS THE DEFENSE
LEGISLATIVE FELLOW FOR THE
MAJORITY LEADER, BE GRANTED
FLOOR PRIVILEGES FOR THE
DURATION OF S. 125, THE MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT
OFFICER
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
I TAKE THIS TIME
TO TALK ABOUT THE PENDING
BUSINESS, WHICH DWELLS HOW WE'RE
GOING TO DEAL WITH THE DEFICIT
OF THIS COUNTRY AND THE DEBT
CEILING LIMIT THAT WILL BE
EXCEEDED IN AUGUST IF WE DON'T
TAKE ANY ACTION IN THE CONGRESS.
FIRST, LET ME TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE DEBT CEILING.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT
THE DEBT CEILING AS TO WHAT IS
THE RESPONSIBLE THING FOR
CONGRESS TO DO.
WE ALL KNOW THAT OVER THE LAST
50 YEARS OR SO, THE DEBT CEILING
HAS INCREASED OVER 80 TIESSMENTS
IT'S DONE AFTER THE FACT.
THAT MEANS WE'VE ALREADY
INCURRED THE LIABILITY.
THE DECISIONS WE'VE TO MAKE IN
REGARDS TO OUR FISCAL POLICIES
NEED --
NOW WE'VE TO PAY OUR BILLS AND
RAISING THE DEBT CEIL SOMETHING
NOT ONLY A LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY
THAT WE HAVE TO PAY OUR BILLS,
IT'S HAS MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND SPEAKS TO WHETHER WE'RE
WILLING TO LIVE UP TO OUR
OBLIGATIONS.
FAILURE TO RAISE THE DEBT
CEILING WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE.
IT WOULD JEOPARDIZE OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY, BECAUSE IT WOULD COST
TAXPAYERS MORE MONEY.
AND IT WOULD SAY TO THE WORLD
THAT THE U.S. BONDS, WHICH ARE
THE SAFEST IN THE WORLD, WERE
CALLED INTO QUESTION.
SO I THINK WE ALL SHOULD AGREE
THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE INCREASE THE DEBT CEILING IN
TIME.
SO THAT WE DO NOT CAUSE THOSE
ADVERSE EFFECTS TO OUR NATION.
NOW, I MUST TELL YOU, I DO THINK
THAT THE DEBT CEILING DEBATE
GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT THE DEFICIT.
OUR DEFICIT IS NOT SUCCESS
STAINABLE F WE DON'T CHANGE
COURSE, OUR DEBT WILL DON'T
LARGE AS A PERCENTAGE OF OUR
ECONOMY AND IT'S NOT
SUSTAINABLE.
SPENDING AND WE NEED TO DEAL
THAT MEANS WE NEED TO DEAL WITH
WITH REVENUE AND TO BRING IT
INTO BALANCE.
WE NEED DISCUSSIONS ON THE DEBT
CEILING COULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY
FOR US TO DEVELOP A CREDIBLE
PLAN TO MANAGE OUR DEFICIT.
I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT'S THE
CASE.
THAT WE COME TOGETHER WITH A
CREDIBLE PLAN TO MANAGE OUR
DEFICIT.
I WOULD HOPE IT WOULD BE
BIPARTISAN, THAT DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS WOULD WORK TOGETHER
TON A PLAN.
IT WOULDN'T BE EXACTLY WHAT
EITHER SIDE WANTS.
IN FACT, WE BOTH WOULD HAVE TO
MAKE COMPROMISES.
IF WE DID THAT, IF WE HAVE A
CREDIBLE PLAN, I THINK IT WOULD
STIMULATE OUR ECONOMY AND WOULD
CLEARLY HELP US CREATE MORE
JOBS, WHICH IS THE BEST THING WE
COULD DO TO HELP REDUCE OUR
DEFICIT.
NOW, I THINK IN ORDER AS A
STARTING POINT WE HAVE TO
POINT.
UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT TO THIS
10 YEARS AGO WE HAD SURPLUSES.
SURPLUSES.
TEN SHORT YEARS AGO WE HAD
AND WE WERE CONCERNED THAT WE
MIGHT BE RETIRING ALL OF OUR
PRIVATELY HELD DEBT.
I WAS PROUD TO HAVE BEEN PART OF
THE CONGRESS THAT VOTED ON THE
LEGISLATION THAT BROUGHT OUR
DEFICITS NOT ONLY DOWN BUT GAVE
US A SURPLUS AND ONE OF THE
LARGEST PERIODS OF ECONOMIC
GROWTH IN AMERICA'S HISTORY.
THEN DURING THE PREVIOUS
ADMINISTRATION, WHICH INHERITED
THE LARGE SURPLUS, POLICIES WERE
BROUGHT FORWARD TO CUT TAXES NOT
ONCE BUT TWICE.
MANY OF THOSE TAX CUTS WENT TO
OUR WEALTHIEST PEOPLE.
THE UNITED STATES WENT TO WAR IN
TWO COUNTRIES AND BORROWED MONEY
IN ORDER TO PURSUE THOSE WARS.
THE FIRST TIME I THINK IN MODERN
HISTORY THAT THE UNITED STATES
WEFNTS TO WAR AND ASKED THE
PEOPLE TO SACRIFICE BY CUTTING
TAXES.
DEFICITS.
THE END RESULT WAS THE LARGE
AND WHEN BARACK OBAMA BECAME
PRESIDENT, HE HAD HUGE DEFICITS,
UNLIKE GEORGE W. BUSH, WHO HAD
HUGE SURPLUSES.
WHEN GEORGE W. BUSH TOOK THE
OATH OF OS FOR PRESIDENT
CIRCUMSTANCE OUR ECONOMY WAS
GROWING CIRCUMSTANCE.
WHEN BARACK OBAMA BECAME
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
WE WERE LOSING 750,000 JOBS A
MONTH.
THAT IS THE CURRENT SITUATION
THAT WE FACE TODAY, IS THAT WE
NOW HAVE THESE DEFICITS THAT WE
HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THE
DEFICITS?
APPROACH.
WELL, WE NEED A BALANCED
I MISS TELL YOU, MR. PRESIDENT,
I AM -- I MUST TELL,
MR. PRESIDENT, I AM PROUD THAT
SENATOR CONRAD, ON BEHALF OF THE
DEMOCRATS ON THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE, HAS COME FORWARD WITH
A CREDIBLE PLAN THAT PRESERVES
THE PRIORITIES OF THIS COUNTRY
TO GROW AND DOES BRING OUR
DEFICIT UNDER CONTROL.
I'M PROUD TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BUDGET COMMITTEE, WORKING WITH
SENATOR CONRAD AND WORKING WITH
MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES TO PUT
TOGETHER THE PLAN THAT SENATOR
CONRAD SPOKE ON THE FLOOR
EARLIER THIS WEEK.
FIRST THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
ABOUT SENATOR CONRAD'S BUDGET IS
THAT IT BRINGS DOWN THE DEFICIT
BY $4 TRILLION OVER THE NEXT TEN
YEARS.
IT ACTUALLY HAS MORE DEFICIT
REDUCTION THAN IT THE
HOUSE-PASSED SO-CALLED RYAN PLAN
THAT THE REPUBLICANS IN THE
HOUSE HAVE SENT OVER TO US.
THE CONRAD PLAN THAT THE SENATE
DEMOCRATS HAVE COME UP WITH WILL
BRING ABOUT MORE DEFICIT
REDUCTION AND SUBSTANTIALLY MORE
DEFICIT REDUCTION THAN THE
BOWLES-SIMPSON COMMISSION HAD
RECOMMENDED.
BECAUSE WE'RE USING MORE
ACCURATE NUMBERS.
2014.
IT WOULD STABLIZE THE DEBT BY
AND THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT
POINT.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE ALL TRYING TO
DO IS MANAGE OUR DEFICIT AND AT
THE SAME TIME HELP OUR ECONOMY.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE CONRAD
BUDGET DOES.
IT STABLIZES THE DEBT BY 2014.
AND IT STARTS WITH REDUCING
DOMESTIC SPENDING.
WHEN WE LOOK AT SPENDING
GENERALLY, WHAT'S HAPPENED,
WHERE NOW SPENDING ABOUT 24.1%
OF OUR G.D.P. IN FEDERAL
SPENDING.
THE CONRAD BUDGET WOULD BRING
THAT DOWN TO 22.1%, A
SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN OUR
SPENDING PROGRAMS.
MR. PRESIDENT, LET ME JUST TELL
YOU THAT 22.1% WOULD BE THE SAME
AMOUNT OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING AS
WE WERE SPENDING DURING THE
REAGAN PRESIDENCY.
THIS IS NOT ANY RADICAL APPROACH
TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO SPEND A
LOT MORE MONEY.
INSTEAD, WE'RE BRINGING SPENDING
DOWN TO THE LEVEL WHEN RONALD
REAGAN WAS PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.
THE BUDGET WOULD ALSO DEAL WITH
OUR OBLIGATIONS FOR A MANDATORY
SPENDING.
NOW, I MUST TELL YOU, I THINK WE
TOOK MAJOR STEPS TO DO THAT IN
THE LAST CONGRESS.
THE PASSAGE OF THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT HELPED US TO PUT
FORWARD A BLUEPRINT TO MANAGE
OUR HEALTH CARE COSTS AS A
NATION.
BY PROVIDING UNIVERSAL COVERAGE,
BY INVESTING IN HEALTH
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, BY
INVESTING IN WELLNESS PROGRAMS,
BY INVESTING IN DEALING WITH
REDUCING REEMISSIONS --
READMISSIONS TO HOSPITALS AND
THE LIST GOES ON AND ON AND ON
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC WE WERE
GETTING A HANDLE ON HEALTH CARE
COSTS.
THE BILL WE PASSED IN THE LAST
CONGRESS WILL REDUCE FEDERAL
SPENDING BY OVER $1 TRILLION
OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
BY REDUCING HEALTH CARE COSTS,
WE REDUCE MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
FUTURE RESPONSIBILITIES.
SO WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN SOME
STEPS, AND THE CONRAD BUDGET
THAT THE DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE
HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD WILL BUILD
ON THAT TO BRING ABOUT
ADDITIONAL SAVINGS IN DOMESTIC
SPENDING.
BUT THE IMPORTANT THING ABOUT
THE BUDGET THAT SENATOR CONRAD
HAS BROUGHT FORWARD, AS COMPARED
TO THE RYAN BUDGET, THE
REPUBLICAN BUDGET THAT PASSED
THE HOUSE, IS THAT THE CONRAD
BUDGET INVESTS IN AMERICA'S
FUTURE.
BECAUSE IT'S BALANCED, WE INVEST
IN WHAT'S IMPORTANT FOR JOB BROG
IN AMERICA, WE CONTINUE TO MAKE
EDUCATION A TOP PRIORITY, SO
THAT AMERICAN FAMILIES CAN
AFFORD TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO
COLLEGE, SO THAT WE INVEST IN
IMPROVING EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL PEOPLE IN
OUR NATION.
THE CONRAD BUDGET ALLOWS US TO
INVEST IN INNOVATION, SO AMERICA
CAN CONTINUE TO LEAD THE WORLD
IN INNOVATION.
THAT'S BEEN OUR -- WHERE WE'VE
CREATED SO MANY JOBS.
IN MY OWN STATE OF MARYLAND, I
LOOK AT WHERE THE JOB GROWTH IS,
AND I SEE SMALL, INNOHAVE AIVE
-- INNOVATIVE COMPANIES
DEVELOPING WAYS TO PROTECT OUR
NATION IN CYBERSECURITY.
I SEE THEM FINDING WAYS TO DEAL
WITH SOLVING OUR ENERGY PROBLEMS
AND MOVING FORWARD WITH HEALTH
TECHNOLOGY, ALL IN INNOVATION,
ALL FROM THE ABILITY TO USE OUR
CREATIVE GENIUS TO KEEP AMERICA
IN THE LEAD ECONOMICALLY.
AND THE CONRAD BUDGET ALLOWS US
TO CONTINUE OUR INVESTMENTS AT
N.I.H. IN BASIC RESEARCH.
THE RYAN BUDGET DOESN'T ALLOW US
TO DO THAT.
SIGNIFICANT CUTBACKS IN ALL
THOSE AREAS.
THE CONRAD BUDGET WHICH THE
HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE BROUGHT
FORWARD ALLOWS TO INVEST IN OUR
INFRASTRUCTURE, OUR ROADS,
BRIDGES, WATER SYSTEMS, SO WE
CAN CREATE MORE JOBS FOR THE
PEOPLE OF THIS NATION.
THE BUDGET ALSO DEALS WITH OUR
MILITARY SPENDING.
LET KNEEL YOU ONE FACT I THINK
THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD
UNDERSTAND.
AMERICA SPENDS AS MUCH IN
DEFENSE AS ALMOST THE ENTIRE
AMOUNT SPENT BY ALL THE OTHER
NATIONS OF THE WORLD.
IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW OUR
NATION CAN CONTINUE TO GROW THE
WAY WE WANT TO WITH SO MUCH OF
OUR BUDGET TIED UP IN THE
DEFENSE -- IN NATIONAL DEFENSE.
WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO
DO THIS IN A BETTER WAY, AND WE
CAN SAVE MONEY IN ALL OF OUR
SPENDING.
BETWEEN 1997 AND 2011, THE
DEFENSE BUDGET OF OUR COUNTRY
GREW FROM $254 BILLION A YEAR TO
$688 BILLION A YEAR.
SO WHAT DOES THE REPUBLICAN
BUDGET DO?
THEY JUST INCREASE THOSE NUMBERS
DRAMATICALLY OVER THE NEXT YEAR,
FIVE YEARS, TEN YEARS.
THE DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL
RECOGNIZES THE REALITY THAT WE
CAN BRING OUR COMBAT TROOPS HOME
FROM AFGHANISTAN, THAT WE CAN
EXPECT THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNITY TO DO MORE, AND WE CAN
BRING ABOUT SAVINGS ON THE
MILITARY SIDE.
BUT LET ME TALK ABOUT THE LAST
MAJOR COMPONENT OF THE CONRAD
BUDGET AND HOW IT DIFFERS
BUDGET.
SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE RYAN
AND THAT IS THE AREA OF
REVENUES, AND I KNOW THERE'S
BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT
REVENUES.
SO WHAT DOES THE DEMOCRATIC
BUDGET DO IN THIS REGARD?
IT TAKES OUR REVENUES TO $19.--
19.5% OF OUR GROSS DOMESTIC
PRODUCT, G.D.P.
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT'S THE SAME
AMOUNT THAT WAS RAISED DURING
THE CLINTON PRESIDENCY WHEN WE
HAD UNPRECEDENTED PROSPERITY AND
JOB GROWTH IN AMERICA.
HOW DID WE GET THERE?
HOW DID WE GET THE REVENUES THAT
WE NEED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO
BRING THIS DEBT UNDER CONTROL?
WELL, SENATOR CONRAD HAS GIVEN
US SOME DIRECTION ON HOW WE CAN
DO THAT.
HE'S POINTED OUT THAT SHELTERS
AND LOOPHOLES NEED TO BE CLOSED.
THESE ARE INEFFICIENCIES IN OUR
TAX CODE TODAY.
I'VE TAKEN THE FLOOR ON TWO
OCCASIONS RECENTLY TO TALK ABOUT
ELIMINATE.
SOME THAT I THINK WE SHOULD
ONE, THE ETHANOL SUBSIDY.
WE HAD A VOTE ON THE FLOOR OF
THE SENATE.
THE MAJORITY OF THE SENATORS
VOTED IN FAVOR OF ELIMINATING
THE ETHANOL SUBSIDY.
WHY?
BECAUSE IT IS NOT NEEDED.
ETH NOT SALES ARE NOT DEPEND --
ETHANOL SALES ARE NOT DEPENDENT
ON A FEDERAL TAX BREAK.
DISRUPTION IN THE AGRICULTURAL
SECONDLY, IT IS CAUSING A
COMMUNITY.
I POINTED OUT THE POULTRY
INDUSTRY IN MARYLAND SUFFERS
FROM THE HIGH PRICE OF CORN
COSTING US JOBS.
SO ELIMINATING THE ETHANOL
SUBSIDY IS A WIN-WIN SITUATION.
WHY NOT TAKE THE
MONEY AND USE IT FOR DEFICIT
REDUCTION?
I'VE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE
MAJOR GAS COMPANIES IN THIS
COUNTRY ARE RECEIVING SUBSIDIES
FROM THE TAXPAYERS.
THEIR PROFITS IN THE FIRST THREE
$34 BILLION.
MONTHS OF THIS YEAR WERE
THEY CERTAINLY DON'T NEED THE
HELP FROM THE TAXPAYERS.
THE TAXPAYERS HAVE ALREADY GIVEN
THEM TOO MUCH IN THE PRICE OF
GASOLINE AT THE PUMP, WHICH HAS
HURT OUR ECONOMY EXCEPT FOR THE
PROFITS OF THE GASOLINE
COMPANIES.
SO THERE -- THERE ARE TAX
LOOPHOLES, THEY'RE SHELTERS THAT
COULD BE CLOSED THAT AMOUNT TO A
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF FEDERAL
EXPENDITURES.
AND, YES, THE HIGHEST INCOME
TAXPAYERS, THE MILLIONAIRES AND
BILLIONAIRES, IS IT REASONABLE
OR RIGHT OR FAIR TO EXPECT THAT
THEY SHOULD CONTINUE TO GET
THESE LOWER TAX RATES THAT WERE
TEMPORARILY EXTENDED UNDER THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION INDEFINITELY
WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN BRING THE
BUDGET INTO BALANCE?
I MUST TELL YOU THAT SENATOR
CONRAD HAS MADE IT VERY CLEAR
THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE
FROM THE CURRENT TAX RATES FOR
THOSE FAMILIES THAT HAVE A
MILLION DOLLARS OF INCOME OR
LESS.
THAT'S A PRETTY I THINK GENEROUS
COMMITMENT ABOUT NOT CHANGING
TAX RATES, PARTICULARLY DURING
THESE ECONOMIC TIMES.
SO LET'S COMPARE THE BUDGETS.
THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET, THE RYAN
BUDGET SAYS, LOOK, ALL THE
SAVINGS IS GOING TO COME OUT OF
THE SPENDING SIDE AND, IN FACT,
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME
ADDITIONAL TAX CUTS.
ASKING MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES TO
PAY MORE WHILE OUR WEALTHIEST
ENJOY EVEN MORE TAX BREAKS.
THE DEMOCRATIC BUDGET SUBMITTED
BY SENATOR CONRAD SAYS WE'RE
GOING TO BE BALANCED.
50% OF OUR DEFICIT REDUCTION WAS
ON THE REVENUE SIDE BUT THAT
INCLUDES REDUCING TAX
EXPENDITURES, TAX SPENDING.
WE SPEND MONEY IN THE TAX CODE.
$1.4 TRILLION A YEAR.
I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE
DIFFERENCE IF WE'RE SPENDING
MONEY ON HOUSING ON THE TACK
CODE OR SPENDING MONEY ON
HOUSING ON THE -- ON THE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
BOTH SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE
SAME TYPE OF SCRUTINY.
SO WHY AREN'T WE USING A SIMILAR
STANDARD?
WELL, WE HAVE A CHANCE TO DO
THAT IN THE CONRAD BUDGET.
50% FROM REVENUES, INCLUDING TAX
SPENDING.
50% FROM THE DIRECT SPENDING
CUTS.
THAT'S A BALANCED APPROACH.
THAT'S A CREDIBLE APPROACH.
IT'S AN APPROACH THAT WILL
PROTECT OUR MOST VULNERABLE.
OUR STUDENTS ARE PROTECTED TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE OUR
COMMITMENT TO EDUCATION AND TO
THE COST OF HIGHER EDUCATION
THROUGH THE PELL GRANTS.
OUR SENIORS ARE PROTECTED IN
THAT WE DO NOT DO WHAT THE RYAN
BUDGET WOULD DO WITH MEDICARE
AND MEDICAID.
LET ME REMIND YOU THAT THE
BUDGET THAT THE REPUBLICANS
PASSED IN THE HOUSE WOULD CHANGE
MEDICARE FUNDAMENTALLY, CHANGING
IT FROM A PROGRAM THAT
GUARANTEES BENEFITS TO OUR
SENIORS TO A PROGRAM WHERE
SENIORS WOULD GET A VOUCHER AND
HAVE TO GO OUT AND BUY A PRIVATE
INSURANCE COMPANY, BE AT THE
WHIM OF PRIVATE INSURANCE
COMPANIES FOR ADEQUATE
CARE NEEDS.
PROTECTION AGAINST THEIR HEALTH
ESTIMATED THAT THEIR HEALTH CARE
COSTS WOULD GROW WHEN FULLY
IMPLEMENTED BY $6,000 A YEAR.
I CAN TELL YOU THE SENIORS OF
MARYLAND CANNOT AFFORD THAT
EXTRA $6,000 A YEAR.
THAT WILL BE THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL GETTING
ADEQUATE HEALTH CARE OR NOT.
THE CONRAD BUDGET REJECTS THAT
TYPE OF RADICAL CHANGE IN OUR
MEDICARE SYSTEM.
THE RYAN BUDGET WOULD REQUIRE
THE BLOCK GRANTING OF MEDICAID
TO OUR STATES.
OUR STATES ARE ALREADY BURDENED.
THE CHANCES OF THEM BEING ABLE
TO MAINTAIN THEIR COMMITMENT TO
YOUNG PEOPLE WHO DEPEND ON THE
MEDICAID SYSTEM OR SENIORS WHO
DEPEND UPON IT FOR LONG-TERM
CARE IS VERY REMOTE.
THE CONRAD BUDGET PROTECTS THOSE
PROGRAMS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
LIVE UP TO OUR COMMITMENTS TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO
OUR FAMILIES AND TO OUR SENIORS.
SOCIAL SECURITY IS PROTECTED IN
THE -- IN THE CONRAD BUDGET
BECAUSE SOCIAL SECURITY DIDN'T
CAUSE THE DEFICIT.
SOCIAL SECURITY SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED OUTSIDE THE BUDGET
DEBATES AND I THINK MORE AND
MORE OF THE MEMBERS ARE NOW
COMING TO THAT CONCLUSION.
AND LET ME MENTION ONE OTHER
POINT THAT I THINK IS VERY
IMPORTANT ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC
BUDGET THAT SENATOR CONRAD HAS
BROUGHT FORWARD.
IT RECOGNIZES OUR FEDERAL WORK
FORCE.
MR. PRESIDENT, I KNOW YOU'RE
PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT, REPRESENTING THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA.
I'M PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE OF
MARYLAND.
WE HAVE A LOT OF DEDICATED
FEDERAL WORKERS WHO DEVOTED
THEIR CAREERS TO HELPING THIS
NATION BY PROTECTING OUR NATION
AND -- IN THEIR SERVICE, IN --
IN HOMELAND SECURITY OR
PROTECTING US IN REGARDS TO HOW
THEY DEAL WITH HEALTH SERVICES
OR HOW THEY DEAL WITH OUR
VETERANS.
THESE ARE DEDICATED PEOPLE.
AND THEY'VE ALREADY CONTRIBUTED
TO THIS DEFICIT REDUCTION.
TWO-YEAR PAY FREEZE HAS ALREADY
BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
FIRST.
IT WAS THE FIRST -- ONE OF THE
SO THEY HAVE -- THEY HAVE
ALREADY DONE THEIR SHARE IN
HELPING US BRING OUR BUDGET INTO
BALANCE.
THE CONRAD BUDGET I'M PROUD TO
SAY SAYS THAT'S ENOUGH.
LET'S NOT JEOPARDIZE OUR FEDERAL
WORK FORCE BY REDUCING THEIR
COMPENSATION PACKAGE IN ADDITION
TO THE FREEZES.
IT SHOWS THAT WE CAN DO IT THAT
WAY.
TAKE A LOOK AT THE RYAN BUDGET
THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE SENT OVER.
MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN THE
COMPENSATION PACKAGES GOING
FORWARD FOR OUR FEDERAL WORK
FORCE.
THERE'S A BETTER WAY.
THE BETTER WAY IS THE CONRAD
BUDGET.
QUITE FRANKLY, WE HAVE A CHOICE.
WE HAVE A CHOICE WHETHER WE'RE
GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AND HOW
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD.
I STRONGLY SUPPORT A CREDIBLE
PLAN TO DEAL WITH THE DEFICIT.
AS I SAID, WE NEED TO GET OUR
DEFICIT UNDER CONTROL BUT WE CAN
DO IT IN A WAY THAT PRESERVES
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL AMERICANS,
CREATING JOB OPPORTUNITIES THAT
ARE DESPERATELY NEEDED FOR OUR
NATION AND PROTECTING AMERICA'S
MOST VULNERABLE.
TO ME, THAT IS MAINTAINING
AMERICA'S FUTURE.
THAT'S GIVING US THE BEST HOPE
THAT OUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN WILL ENJOY THE
OPPORTUNITIES OF THIS GREAT
NATION.
AND THAT SHOULD BE THE GUIDING
FORCE FOR OUR WORK HERE.
I CERTAINLY HOPE MY COLLEAGUES
WILL WORK TOGETHER SO THAT WE
CAN COME TOGETHER FOR THE FUTURE
OF THIS NATION.
AND WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A
QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
A SENATOR: MADAM PRESIDENT, I
WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
THE QUORUM CALL BE DISPENSED
WITH.
THE
SENATOR FROM MISSOURI IS
RECOGNIZED, AND WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MADAM PRESIDENT,
CONVERSATIONS CONTINUE TODAY
ABOUT EXACTLY HOW WE'RE GOING TO
MEET THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
THAT OUR COUNTRY FACES.
THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION ON HAND
SEEMS TO BE DO WE BORROW MORE
AND SPEND MORE OR DO WE MAKE THE
TYPES OF SERIOUS, TOUGH
DECISIONS THAT WILL MAKE OUR
NATION -- THAT WILL GET OUR
NATION BACK ON A SOUND FINANCIAL
FOOTING?
TODAY OUR NATIONAL DEBT STANDS
AT OVER $14 TRILLION.
UNEMPLOYMENT CONTINUES TO RISE
WITH MORE THAN 14 MILLION
AMERICANS OUT OF WORK NOW, AND
THE GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO
SPEND MORE MONEY THAN IT
COLLECTS OR THAN I BELIEVE IT
SHOULD COLLECT.
AS COCHAIRS OF THE PRESIDENT'S
OWN FISCAL COMMISSION HAVE
WARNED, IF WE FAIL TO TAKE SWIFT
AND SERIOUS ACTIONS, THE UNITED
STATES FACES, ACCORDING TO THEM,
THE MOST PREDICTABLE ECONOMIC
CRISIS IN HISTORY.
A QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO MANY
PEOPLE INCLUDING MY FELLOW
MISSOURIAN MARK TWAIN, IT'S HARD
TO MAKE PREDICTIONS, ESPECIALLY
FUTURE.
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
BUT THE THING THAT'S THE EASIEST
TO PREDICT IS DEMOGRAPHICS.
IF YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE
HERE NOW AND HAVE ALL THE OTHER
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION YOU
NEED, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO
FIGURE OUT WHAT THE POPULATION
IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
AND AS THE POPULATION GETS
OLDER, OUR PROGRAMS FOR SENIORS
WILL COST MORE.
AT HIS NEWS CONFERENCE
YESTERDAY, PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS
ASKED ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY
REFORM, AND HE SAID IN A
STATEMENT I DIDN'T QUITE
UNDERSTAND, SOCIAL SECURITY IS
NOT THE SOURCE OF OUR DEFICIT
PROBLEM, BUT THEN HE WENT ON TO
SAY THE REASON THAT WE DO SOCIAL
SECURITY IN THE DEBT CEILING
PLAN IS TO STRENGTHEN SOCIAL
SECURITY TO MAKE SURE THAT
BENEFITS ARE THERE FOR THE
SENIORS IN THE OUT YEARS.
WELL, I AGREE TOTALLY.
THIS IS THE TIME TO DEAL WITH
SOCIAL SECURITY, PARTICULARLY
THE TIME TO DEAL WITH SOCIAL
SECURITY IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEAL
WITH SOCIAL SECURITY IN A WAY
THAT DOESN'T IMPACT ANYONE WHO
IS RETIRED OR ANYONE WHO IS
APPROACHING RETIREMENT.
THE PRESIDENT WENT ON TO SAY
THAT REPUBLICANS WANT TO TALK
ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY AS PART OF
A BROADER DEAL BECAUSE IT'S
POLITICALLY DIFFICULT TO VOTE
ON.
NOW, I ACTUALLY THINK THAT A LOT
OF REPUBLICANS AND A LOT OF
DEMOCRATS WANT TO TALK ABOUT
SOCIAL SECURITY BECAUSE WE KNOW
THAT NOW IS THE RIGHT TIME TO
SAVE IT, AND THAT IF YOU'RE
GOING TO SAVE IT FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS, YOU HAVE TO START
SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
MADAM PRESIDENT, OUR COLLEAGUE,
SENATOR BAUCUS, THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, SAID
DURING A HEARING IN MAY ON
DEFICIT REDUCTION AND SOCIAL
SECURITY, QUOTING SENATOR
BAUCUS, ADDRESSING OUR DEFICITS
AND DEBTS IS AN ECONOMIC ISSUE,
A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE AND A
MORAL ISSUE, AND HE WENT ON TO
SAY, QUOTING HIM AGAIN, "WE HAVE
A MORAL OBLIGATION TO LEAVE THIS
PLACE BETTER THAN WE FOUND IT."
ENDING HIS QUOTE.
BUT, MADAM PRESIDENT, I AGREE
WITH HIS QUOTE.
IF WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE SOCIAL
SECURITY BETTER THAN WE FOUND
IT, WE HAVE TO BEGIN TO WORK ON
IT RIGHT NOW.
ARE HIGHER.
EACH YEAR, SOCIAL SECURITY COSTS
THIS YEAR, THEY ARE GOING TO BE
3.6% HIGHER THAN LAST YEAR.
THAT'S A ONE-YEAR INCREASE, 3.6%
IN ONE YEAR.
THE WORKER TO BENEFICIARY
RATIO -- AND WE KNOW HOW SOCIAL
SECURITY WORKS, PEOPLE PAYING IN
LARGELY FUND THE MONEY THAT'S
GOING OUT TODAY.
PEOPLE PAYING IN IN 2035 WILL BE
2.1 FOR EVERY PERSON WORKING.
AND IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM, THERE
IS NO WAY THAT THE PAGES ON THE
FLOOR HERE TODAY ARE GOING TO BE
ABLE TO TAKE -- TO PAY HALF OF
WHATEVER THE AVERAGE RECIPIENT
GETS, BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD
HAVE TO DO IF WE DON'T CHANGE
THE SYSTEM.
WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE
DEFICITS FACING SOCIAL SECURITY,
AND I THINK WE NEED TO DEAL WITH
THEM RIGHT NOW, WHETHER IT'S
POLITICALLY DIFFICULT OR NOT.
OTHERWISE, THERE WON'T BE A
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM THAT
WORKS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
PAYING IN TODAY.
SOCIAL SECURITY NO LONGER
COLLECTS WHAT IT SPENDS.
WE HAVE A $45 BILLION DEFICIT OR
A SHORTFALL IN 2011, AND THE
TRUTH IS WE'RE STILL CASHING IN
THE I.O.U.'S TO SOCIAL SECURITY
AND WE'LL DO THAT AS LONG AS
THEY ARE THERE, BUT EVENTUALLY
THOSE I.O.U.'S RUN OUT AS WELL
OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS, IT'S
PROJECTED THAT WE WILL SPEND
SPEND $450 BILLION, $447 BILLION
MORE THAN COMES INTO THE SOCIAL
SECURITY TRUST FUND.
ACCORDING TO A REPORT THIS YEAR,
SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOW OPERATING
UNDER PERMANENT ANNUAL DEFICITS
FOR AS LONG AS THEY CAN
CALCULATE.
NOW, PERMANENT ANNUAL DEFICITS
WON'T WORK, SO WHAT WOULD WORK?
TODAY I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS A PLAN
TO PUT SOCIAL SECURITY ON A PATH
THAT MEANS OUR CHILDREN AND OUR
GRANDCHILDREN CAN HAVE
CONFIDENCE THAT THE
CONTRIBUTIONS THAT COME OUT OF
THEIR HARD-EARNED PAYCHECKS WILL
RESULT IN BENEFITS WHEN THEY
RETIRE.
ASK PEOPLE YOU KNOW AT WORK WHO
ARE IN THEIR 20'S AND 30'S IF
THEY EXPECT TO COLLECT SOCIAL
SECURITY BENEFITS.
JUST UNDER 26% OF VOTERS UNDER
40 BELIEVE IT'S EVEN SOMEWHAT
LIKELY THAT THEY'LL RECEIVE ALL
THEIR PROMISED SOCIAL SECURITY
BENEFITS.
26% SOMEWHAT LIKELY, NOT
GUARANTEED, NOT ABSOLUTE,
SOMEWHAT LIKELY.
AND JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA,
15% OF PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT
SOCIAL SECURITY WILL BE FINE IF
IT'S NOT REFORMED.
15%.
20% OF PEOPLE POLLED BELIEVE
THAT ALIENS EXIST AND LIVE AMONG
US.
SO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT
BELIEVE THAT ALIENS EXIST AND
LIVE AMONG US IS HIGHER THAN THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE
THAT SOCIAL SECURITY WILL BE
FINE IF IT'S NOT REFURLED.
THE LAST TIME THE SENATE AND THE
HOUSE MADE COMPREHENSIVE CHANGES
IN SOCIAL SECURITY WAS 1983.
WCIALG IT'S TIME TO DO IT AGAIN.
IT'S TIME TO DO IT AGAIN AND WE
CAN MAKE CHANGES IN A PROGRAM
THAT WON'T AFFECT THOSE THAT ARE
APPROACHING RETIREMENT.
CHARGE.
THOUGH, THAT'LL ALWAYS BE THE
THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE SOCIAL
SECURITY FROM RETIRE HE IS WELL,
THIS IS A PLAN THAT TALKS ABOUT
PEOPLE WHO ARE 55 AND YOUNGER
AND NO CHANGE FOR ANYBODY WHO'S
5 OR OLDER TODAY.
SO IF YOU'RE 5 OR OLDER AND YOU
HEAR THE DISCUSSION ABOUT AT
LEAST THIS PLAN, IT HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH YOU.
IT WON'T AFFECT YOUR SOCIAL
SECURITY.
SO THAT'S THE FIRST POINT.
THE SECOND POINT WOULD BE, WE
NEED TO LOOK AT A NEW
COST-OF-LIVING INDEX THAT'S
REALLY BASED ON THE COST -- THE
COST THAT SENIORS HAVE.
THE THIRD POINT WE NEED A NEW
DISTRIBUTION FORMULA, AND IF WE
DO THOSE THREE THINGS, WE'LL
HAVE A SOLVENT SYSTEM FOR AT
LEAST SEVEN DECADES.
IN THE NEXT 70 YEARS SOMEBODY
CAN LOOK AT THIS AND COME UP
WITH A PLAN TO BE SURE IT GOES
BEYOND THENMENT BUT SEVEN
DECADES IS AS FAR AS YOU CAN
SAVELY PREDICT ANYTHING.
BUT THIS WOULD PREDICT THE LIFE
OF SOCIAL SECURITY FOR AT LEAST
THAT LONG AS A SOLVENT SYSTEM.
MOST SENIORS LIVE ON A FIXED
INCOME, AND THEY FEEL IT WHEN
THEIR UTILITY BILLS GO UP, THEIR
HEALTH CARE COSTS GO UP, OR WHEN
THEIR FOOD PRICES GO UP.
THE CURRENT COST-OF-LIVING
ADJUSTMENT, THE SO-CALLED COLA
FORMULA CALCULATED BY THE BUREAU
OF LABOR STATISTICS, KNOWN AS
THE C.P.I. OR THE CONSUMER PRICE
INDEX, TRACKS PURCHASES BY
WORKING AGE INDIVIDUALS.
NOW, FRANKLY WHAT WORKING AGE
INDIVIDUALS BUY MAY BE QUITE A
BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT -- THAN
HOW SENIORS SPEND THEIR MONEY OR
AT LEAST HOW MOST SENIORS SPEND
THEIR MONEY.
MANY ECONOMISTS BELIEVE THIS
CAUSES THE C.P.I. TO
MISREPRESENT THE INFLATION THAT
IMPACTS SENIORS.
AND SENIORS DESERVE BETTER.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE RISING COST OF
EDUCATION AND CHILD CARE ARE
HEAVILY WEIGHTED IN THE CURRENT
FORMULA.
THESE COSTS DON'T OFTEN HAVE THE
SAME IMPACT ON SENIORS AS THEY
DO ON THE WORKING-AGE POPULATION
OR THE YOUNGER POPULATION.
THE HEALTH CARE COSTS AND
UTILITY BILLS'S A, AS AN
EXAMPLE, HAVE MORE IMPACT ON
SENIORS AND ON THE BUDGET OF
SENIORS THAN THEY DO ON THE
WORKING-AGE POPULATION.
MY PLAN DIRECTS THE BUREAU OF
LABOR STATISTICS TO DEVELOP A
MORE ACCURATE METHOD OF
CALCULATING COLAS FOR SOCIAL
SECURITY RECIPIENTS.
IT WOULD MOVE TO A
CHAIN-WEIGHTED C.P.I. THAT
ACCOUNTS FOR THE PURCHASING
HABITS OF INDIVIDUALS, NOT OF
ALL AGES BUT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
OVER 65.
AND HEALTH CARE COSTS WOULD
ACCOUNT FOR A MUCH LARGER
PORTION OF SENIOR'S SPENDING IN
THIS TYPE OF AN INVERY, AN INDESM DEX.
WHAT THEY SPEND THEIR MONEY ON
IS WHAT WE'D BE LOOKING AT
INSTEAD OF WHAT EVERYBODY IN THE
WORKING-AGE POPULATION SPENDS
THEIR MONEY ON.
THIS WOULD ELIMINATE THE
PROGRAM'S LONG-TERM FUNDING
SHORT FALL AND ENSURE PAMS
PAYMENTS FORBE THE NEXT 70 TO 75
YEARS.
LIKE THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL
COMMISSION, MY PLAN WOULD
ACCOUNT FOR THE INCREASE IN LIFE
EXPECTANCICY AND WOULD CALL FOR
AN INCREASE IN THE NORMAL
RETIREMENT AGE.
NOW, REMEMBER, PRIMARILY THESE
ARE FOR RETIREES HUE HO DON'T
BELIEVE THEY'RE GOING TO BENEFIT
FROM THE SYSTEM ANYHOW.
MOST OF THE PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HERE WHO WILL BE IMPACTED
DON'T THINK THE SYSTEM IS GOING
TO BE THERE FOR THEM.
WE'RE TRYING TO ENSURE THAT IT
WOULD BE.
OVER TIME, THE RETIREMENT AGE
CHANGES TO 65 YEARS.
THAT'S ONE YEAR YOUNGER THAN THE
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION'S
PROPOSAL, BUT I THINK IT'S AN
AGE THAT WORKS AND IT LOOKS LIKE
IT'S WORKING AS WE LOOK THROUGH
THESE NUMBERS.
THIS MEANS THAT THE RETIREMENT
AGE WILL RISE SLOWLY FOR FUTURE
RETIREES.
THREE MONTHS FOR EACH YEAR FROM
2022 TO 2030.
NOBODY WOULD BE IMPACTED AT ALL
UNTIL 2022, AND THAT PERSON THAT
WAS GOING TO RETIRE IN 2022
WOULD RETIRE THREE MONTHS LATER.
AND THAT WOULD BE ADDED ON EVERY
YEAR UNTIL 2030.
LIKEWISE, THE PLAN WOULD CHANGE
EARLY RETIREMENT BENEFITS FROM
62 TO 64 BEGINNING IN 2022.
SO IT ONLY AGAIN IMPACTS PEOPLE
WHO GET TO THAT AGE IN 2022.
OUR CURRENT BENEFIT STRUCTURE IS
SIMPLY NOT SUSTAINABLE AND
THAT'S WHY MY PLAN WOULD ALSO
MODIFY THE CURRENT BENEFIT
STRUCTURE TO ENSURE THAT SENIORS
WHO EARNED AT OR BELOW THE
40th PERCENTILE RECEIVE
EXACTLY SAME AMOUNT OF
RETIREMENT BENEFITS AS THEY
WOULD IF THE PROGRAM CONTINUED
EXACTLY AS IT IS TODAY.
AND A NEW SLIGHTLY REDUCED INDEX
BENEFITS WOULD OCCUR ABOVE THE
40% TOP.
WEALTHIER SENIORS CAN PLAN FOR
THEIR RETIREMENT YEARS THROUGH
PERSONAL SAVINGS, THROUGH
RETIREMENT PLANS, THROUGH
ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, THROUGH
IRA'S, THROUGH
EMPLOYER-SPONSORED PLANS, BUT
THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN THAT
CATEGORY WOULD CONTINUE TO GET
EXACTLY THE SAME BENEFIT WHEN
THEY RETIRE THEY WOULD GET AT
RETIREMENTTODAY'S RETIREMENT AGE.
SO BACK TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
COMMENTS YESTERDAY.
LET'S LOOK AT A PLANE THAT DOES
THE FOLLOWING, PRESIDENT OBAMA.
LET'S LOOK AT A PLAN THAT HAS NO
HIGHER RATE OF CONTRIBUTIONS, NO
MEANS TEST FOR SOCIAL SECURITY
SIMENTS, NO TAX ON FUTURE
BENEFICIARIES, A SLIGHTLY LOWER
BENEFIT AND A SLIGHTLY LONGER
TIME TO WORK TO RETIREMENT.
DIFFERENCE IS, IF YOU WORK TO
RETIREMENT, YOU ACTUALLY GET A
BENEFIT.
THIS IS NO LONGER A TOPIC WE CAN
AVOID.
SO LET'S NOT MISS THIS
OPPORTUNITY.
LET'S MAKE A PROMISE RIGHT NOW
WHILE WE'RE DEALING WITH BIG
ISSUES TO WORKERS PAYING THE
BILL TODAY THAT SOCIAL SECURITY
RETIRE.
WILL BE THERE FOR THEM WHEN THEY
AND, MADAM PRESIDENT, I WOULD
SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL: