Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
IN TO GO FORWARD WITH
COMPREHENSIVE TAX REFORM AND WE
BELIEVE THE WYDEN-COATS PLAN IS
THE PLACE TO STAMPLET I THANK MY
COLLEAGUE FOR HIS EFFORTS AND
I'LL TURN IT BACK TO HIM TO
CONCLUDE THIS COLLOQUY.
MR. PRESIDENT?
I THANK MY FRIEND FROM INDIANA.
HE MAKES A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT
POINTS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
ARE CONSIDERED AS THE DISCUSSION
ABOUT TAXES GOES FORWARD.
FOR EXAMPLE, SENATOR COATS
POINTED OUT ON THIS QUESTION OF
CHANGING JUST THE CORPORATE
ALONE -- WHAT ARE ESSENTIALLY
C-CORPORATIONS -- THE REALITY IS
THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF
BUSINESSES IN THIS ARE COUNTRY ARE
NOT "C" CORPORATIONS.
THEY ARE PARTNERSHIPS, LIMITED
LIABILITY CORPORATIONS, SOLE
PROPRIETORSHIPS.
THEY ARE ABOUT 80% OF THE
BUSINESSES IN THIS COUNTRY.
SO SENATOR COATS HAS MADE THE
IMPORTANT POINT THAT, TO REALLY
BRING ABOUT TAX REFORM, YOU
CAN'T JUST GO WITH CORPORATE
TAXATION.
YOU'VE GOT TO GET AT THE NEEDS
OF MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF
THESE SMALL BUSINESSES, AND I
WOULD JUST NOTE THAT CHAIRMAN
BERNANKE WAS ASKED ABOUT THIS IN
THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, AND HE
SAID SPECIFICALLY THAT IT WAS
IMPORTANT TO DO COMPREHENSIVE
REFORM IN ORDER TO GENERATE THE
BEST OPPORTUNITY FOR ECONOMIC
GROWTH AND JOB CREATION, RATHER
THAN CORPORATE REFORM ALONE.
SENATOR COATS ALSO MAKES AN
IMPORTANT POINT AS WE WRAP UP
ABOUT THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF
OUR TAX CODE AND HOW FRUSTRATING
THAT IS TO AMERICAN BUSINESS
THAT NEEDS TO HAVE SOME CAPACITY
TO PREDICT WHAT'S AHEAD TO
GENERATE JOBS.
THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL"
RORLTED THE OTHER DAY --
REPORTED THE OTHER DAY THAT THE
ONLY THING PERMANENT ABOUT THE
AMERICAN TAX CODE IS THAT IT'S
TEMPORARY.
AND WE HAVE MORE THAN QUADRUPLED
THE NUMBER OF TEMPORARY
PROVISIONS IN THE TAX CODE IN
JUST THE LAST FEW YEARS.
AND THAT UNCERTAINTY DISCOURAGES
BUSINESSES FROM INVESTING IN
GROWTH AND HIRING, AS SENATOR
COATS HAS NOTED.
AND THAT'S WHY IT'S GOING TO BE
IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THE TAX
CODE IN A COMPREHENSIVE WAY,
BOTH FOR INDIVIDUALS AND
CORPORATIONS, SO THAT GOING
FORWARD ALL OUR TAXPAYERS HAVE
SOME SENSE OF PREDICTABILITY AND
CERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT THEIR TAX
TREATMENT WILL ENTAIL.
MY LAST POINT IS, I RECENTLY HAD
A CHANCE TO TALK TO ONE OF THE
VETERANS OF THE 1986 TAX REFORM
DEBATE, AND WE VISITED ABOUT
SOME OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
INVOLVED IN THAT HISTORIC REFORM
AHEAD.
AND SOME OF THE CHALLENGES
AND WHEN HE WAS DONE, HE SAID,
WHAT IN THE WORLD IS HOLDING
PEOPLE UP FROM GETTING GOING?
-- FROM GETTING GOING ON THIS?
WHAT'S REALLY HOLDING EVERYBODY
UP?
WE KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
THERE HAVE BEEN COMMISSIONS, A
WHOLE HOST OF THEM -- PRESIDENT
OBAMA HAD AN EXCELLENT ONE THAT
AGREED WCH OF WHAT WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT -- AGREED WITH MUCH OF
WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS
AFTERNOON.
I THOUGHT PRESIDENT BUSH'S --
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH'S
COMMISSION WAS CHAIRED BY CEPHAL
OUR FORMER COLLEAGUES.
I THOUGHT MUCH OF THEIR PROPOSAL
WAS ON POINT.
AND THAT'S WHY WHAT ONE OF THE
VETERANS OF THAT 1986 REFORM
LEGISLATION HAD TO SAY TO ME,
WHAT'S HOLDING PEOPLE UP, IS SO
IMPORTANT.
AS SENATOR COATS NOTED, YOU'RE
NOT GOING TO DO COMPREHENSIVE
TAX REFORM BETWEEN NOW AND
AUGUST 2.
EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT.
BUT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO
REASON, MR. PRESIDENT, IN ORDER
TO COME TOGETHER IN THE UNITED
STATES SENATE WITH AN APPROACH
THAT DOESN'T ADD TO THE FEDERAL
DEFICIT, WITH A PROVEN TRACK
RECORD OF HELPING TO ADVANCE
ECONOMIC SECURITY, THAT BETWEEN
NOW AND AUGUST 2, AS PART OF
THESE BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS,
THERE'S NO REASON WHY IN THAT
AGREEMENT WE SHOULDN'T LOCK IN A
STRATEGY FOR GETTING ON TO TAX
REFORM IN THE FALL AND IN THE
REMAINDER OF THIS CONGRESS.
SO I THANK SENATOR COATS.
HE MENTIONED SENATOR GREGG.
I FEEL SO FORTUNATE TO HAVE HAD
TWO COLLEAGUES -- WE WERE IN THE
HOUSE TOGETHER, WE'RE HAVING AN
OPPORTUNITY, SENATOR COATS AND
I, TO WORK TOGETHER ON THIS IN
THE SENATE, AND I THINK WE HAVE
ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, FELT THAT YOU
OUGHT TO FOCUS ON WHAT REALLY
WORKS RATHER THAN THE DEFAULT
STRATEGY OF REHASHING OLD
ARGUMENTS AND JUST HAVING THESE
PARTISAN FIGHTS.
SO I THANK SENATOR COATS.
WE'LL HAVE OUR EYE ON THE EFFORT
BETWEEN NOW AND AUGUST 2 TO MAKE
SURE THAT TAX REFORM GETS THE
PLACE IT DESERVES FOR THE FALL
AND REMAINDER OF THE CONGRESS.
I THANK MY FRIEND FROM INDIANA.
MR. PRESIDENT, WITH THAT, I'D
YIELD THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, LAST NIGHT
S. 185, A RESOLUTION THAT WAS
COSPONSORED BY ABOUT 90% OF THE
SENATE, PASSED THE SENATE BY
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO MY
COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR HELP IN
DEVELOPING THIS RESOLUTION.
THIS RESOLUTION EXPRESSES THE
STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE UNITED
STATES, THROUGH OUR CLOSEST ALLY
IN THE MIDDLE EAST, ISRAEL.
I WAS JOINED IN THIS EFFORT BY
MY GOOD FRIEND, SENATOR SUE SON
COLLINS FROM MAINE.
THE TWO OF US WORKED TOGETHER TO
DRAFT THIS RESOLUTION, AND WE
ARE GRATEFUL THAT SO MANY
MEMBERS, SO MANY OF OUR
COLLEAGUES JOINED US IN THE
PROCESSES AND THAT IT'S NOW
PASSED THE UNITED STATES SENATE
BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
THIS RESOLUTION FIRST AND
FOREMOST EXPRESSES OUR STRONG
SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL, RECOGNIZING
THESE ARE EXTREMELY CHALLENGING
TIMES, EXPRESSION OUR SUPPORT
FOR PEACE BETWEEN THE
PALESTINIANS AND THE ISRAELIS,
AND RECOGNIZES THAT THE ONLY WAY
THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO
MOVE FORWARD ON THE PEACE
PROCESS IS THROUGH DIRECT
ISRAELIS AND THE PALESTINIANS.
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE
AND THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT WE
CAN RESOLVE THESE LONG-STANDING
ISSUES IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE PEACE
IN THAT REGION.
THE RESOLUTION ALSO REAFFIRMS
OUR OPPOSITION TO THE INCLUSION
OF HAMAS IN ANY UNILATERALLY
GOVERNMENT UNLESS IT IS WILLING
TO ACCEPT PEACE WITH ISRAEL AND
RENOUNCE VIOLENCE.
YOU CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH
SOMEONE SWRN TO BRING ABOUT YOUR
-- SWORN TO BRING ABOUT YOUR
DESTRUCTION.
THEREFORE, HAMAS'S HAMAS'S INCLUSION IN
ANY GOVERNMENT IS A NO-STARTER.
ANY ATTEMPT BY THE UNITED
NATIONS TO ESTABLISH A
PALESTINIAN STATE IS DETRIMENTAL
TO ANY FINAL PEACE AGREEMENT.
A PERMANENT AND PEACEFUL
SETTLEMENT OF THE
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT CAN
ONLY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH DIRECT
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN
NEGOTIATIONS.
ANY PALESTINIAN EFFORT TO GAIN
RECOGNITION OF A STATE OUTSIDE
OF DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS
DEMONSTRATE THEIR LACK OF GOOD
FAITH, COMMITMENT TO A PEACE
NEGOTIATION.
THE SENATE IS NOW FIRMLY ON
RECORD THAT THIS KIND OF ACTION
WOULD BE DIRECTLY
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO PEACE, AND
IF THE PALESTINIANS PURSUE THIS,
IT MAY WELL HAVE IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE CONTINUED U.S.
PARTICIPATION WITHIN THE
PALESTINIANS.
ISRAEL HAS ALWAYS BEEN WILLING
TO COME TO THE PEACE TABLE FOR
DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS.
FRANKLY, IT'S BEEN THE
PALESTINIANS WHICH HAVE BEEN
DRAGGING THEIR FEET FOR MANY
MONTHS, REFUSING TO HAVE THE
DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE
PARTIES, WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY
THAT THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED.
LASTING PEACE CAN ONLY COME
THROUGH THAT DIRECT NEGOTIATION,
TO SETTLE ALL OUTSTANDING ISSUES
SIDES.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF BOTH
GIVE-AND-TAKE.
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S GOING TO BE
THERE HAS TO BE GIVE AN TAKE.
THERE'S GOT TO BE MUTUAL RESPECT
AND SECURITY.
AND THAT REQUIRES ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION AND PEACE TALKS.
THE TWO SIDES CAN ACHIEVE A
PEACE AGREEMENT ONLY WHEN THEY
ACKNOWLEDGE EACH OTHER'S RIGHT
TO EXIST.
THAT'S PRETTY FUNDAMENTAL.
THIS IS PARTICULARLY CRITICAL
NOW FOR THE PALESTINIANS AND
THEIR UNITY GOVERNMENT THAT
INCLUDES HAMAS.
UNLESS HAMAS FULLY RENOUNCES
VIOLENCE AND ACKNOWLEDGES
ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST, IT
CANNOT BE A PARTNER IN PEACE,
AND THEIR INCLUSION IN THE
PALESTINIAN UNITY GOVERNMENT IS
A MAJOR OBSTACLE.
AS PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU
STATED SO WELL IN HIS SPEECH
BEFORE THE JOINT SESSION OF
CONGRESS IN MAY, AND I QUOTE THE
PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL, "I
WILL ACCEPT A PALESTINIAN STATE.
IT IS TIME FOR PRESIDENT ABBAS"
-- THE HEAD OF THE PALESTINIANS
-- "TO STAND BEFORE HIS PEOPLE
AND SAY, 'I WILL ACCEPT A JEWISH
STATE.'
IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS IN THE
INTEREST OF ALL PARTS THAT THERE
BE TWO STATES, THE JEWISH STATE
OF ISRAEL AND AN INDEPENDENT
PALESTINIAN STATE LIVING SIDE BY
PEACE."
SIDE WITH SECURE BORDERS AND
SO, LET ME JUST AGAIN
ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT I THINK PRIME
MINISTER NETANYAHU SAID.
ISRAEL IS PREPARED TO
ACKNOWLEDGE A PALESTINIAN STATE.
IT'S TIME FOR THE PALESTINIANS
TO ACKNOWLEDGE A JEWISH
STAIVMENTJEWISH STATE.DIFFICULT NEGOTIATIONS NEED TO
TAKE PLACE.
THERE ARE CRITICAL ISSUES SUCH
AS SECURITY, POWER, AND WATER
CONCERNS, AS WELL AS LARGER
ISSUES OF HISTORICAL, RELIGIOUS,
AND TERRITORIAL MATTERS STILL
MUST BE DECIDED.
THAT MUST TAKE PLACE THROUGH
DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE
ISRAELIS AND THE PALESTINIANS.
THIS IS PRECISELY WHY IT'S SO
IMPORTANT TO DISCUSS, NEGOTIATE,
AND ULTIMATELY RESOLVE THESE
ISSUES RATHER THAN TAKING
UNILATERAL ACTION THAT WOULD
LEAD THEM UNSETTLED AND
UNSUSTAINABLE.
THE REAL LASTING PEACE WILL ONLY
OCCUR AT THE PEACE TABLE, AND
I'M GRATEFUL THAT THE SENATE HAS
STRONGLY AND UNANIMOUSLY GONE ON
RECORD TO AFFIRM THIS APPROACH.
WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I RISE TODAY TO JOIN AGAIN IN
THE DEBATE OCCURRING HERE IN
WASHINGTON ON BRINGING OUR
FEDERAL BUDGET INTO BALANCE AND
FACING UP TO OUR LOOMING DEBT
LIMIT.
OUR NATION RIGHT NOW IS LIKE AN
OVERBURDENED SHIP, WALLOWING IN
THE SEAS.
WE ARE IN DANGER AS A NATION OF
FANDERING IF WE DON'T -- OF
FOUNDERING IF WE DON'T SORT THIS
OUT.
AS THE FORMER COMP COMPTROLLER DAVID
WALKER TESTIFIED TO US IN THE
BUDGET COMMITTEE HISTORY OF A
YEAR AGO, WE FACE -- AND I QUOTE
-- "LARGE, KNOWN, AND GROWING
STRUCTURAL DEFICITS THAT COULD
SWAMP OUR SHIP OF STATE."
SHIP IN TRIM, WE NEED
TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS.
WE NEED TO REDUCE THE DEFICITS
AND ULTIMATELY REDUCE THE DEBT.
WE AGREE ON A LOT.
WE NEED TO CUT SPENDING.
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AGREE
ON THAT.
WE NEED TO PROTECT ORDINARY
FAMILIES WHO ENJOY ORDINARY
LEVELS OF INCOME FROM TAX
INCREASES.
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AGREE
ON THAT.
THE DISAGREEMENT HERE IN
WASHINGTON IS WHETHER WE ALSO
NEED TO RAISE SOME REVENUES FOR
OUR NATION IN OTHER AREAS TO
HELP BALANCE OUR NATIONAL
BUDGET.
AREAS LIKE OIL AND GAS AND
ETHANOL SUBSIDIES THAT WE COULD
CLOSE AND CONTRIBUTE TO FIXING
OUR BUDGET DEFICIT. CLOSING CORPORATE TAX LOOK
LIKE HOLES, BRINGING TO AN END
HIGH-INCOME TAX-DODGE SCHEMES.
THE REPUBLICANS ARE THREATENING
THAT THEY WOULD RATHER SINK THE
BOAT THAN RAISE REVENUES IN
THOSE AREAS.
JUST THIS WEEK SENATE REPUBLICAN
LEADER MITCH McCONNELL CALLED
ON PRESIDENT OBAMA TO TAKE ANY
REVENUE RAISERS OFF THE TABLE
AND TO FOCUS ONLY ON SPENDING
CUTS.
IN AN OPINION PIECE ON CNN.COM,
REPUBLICAN LEADER McCONNELL
CLAIMED TAX HIKES CAN'T -- WHEN
LEADER McCONNELL IS TALKING
ABOUT TAX HIKES, HE'S TALKING
ABOUT THE RATES THAT THE
WEALTHIEST AMERICANS PAY IN
TAXES, OFTEN LOWER THAN ORDINARY
AMERICAN FAMILIES, BELIEVE IT OR
NOT, GAS AND OIL AND OTHER
SUBSIDIES THAT GO TO BIG
INDUSTRIES, AND TAX LOOPHOLES
THAT GENERATIONS OF CORPORATE
LOBBYISTS HAVE WANGLED INTO THE
TAX CODE. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
TALKING ABOUT WHEN THEY TALK
ABOUT TAX HIKES IN THIS CONTEXT.
LET'S TAKE A SPECIFIC LOOK AT
WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE
FIGHTING SO HARD TO PROTECT.
LAST MONTH REPUBLICANS
FILIBUSTERED A MEASURE THAT
WOULD HAVE ENDED $21 BILLION IN
UNNECESSARY TAX SUBSIDIES FOR
THE LARGEST OIL COMPANIES IN THE
NATION, COMPANIES THAT HAVE BEEN
ENJOYING RECORD
MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR PROFITS AND
DO NOT NEED CONTINUED SUPPORT
FROM THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER.
WHEN WE TRIED TO BREAK THE
REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTER,
REPUBLICANS VOTED TO PROTECT
THOSE BIG OIL SUBSIDIES EVEN
THOUGH THEY ADD TO THE DEFICIT.
THAT HAPPENED RIGHT HERE ON THE
SENATE FLOOR JUST A SHORT TIME
AGO.
TO KEEP OUR AMERICAN SHIP OF
STATE AFLOAT, THE REPUBLICANS
ARE DEMANDING THAT WE CUT EARLY
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION WHILE AT THE
SAME TIME THEY FIGHT TO PROTECT
BIG OIL SUBSIDIES.
HERE IS A BUILDING IN THE CAYMAN
ISLANDS.
IT'S CALLED UGLAND HOUSE.
THIS NONDESCRIPT BUILDING REALLY
DOESN'T LOOK LIKE MUCH, BUT OVER
18,000 CORPORATIONS CLAIM THAT
THIS BUILDING IS THEIR PLACE OF
BUSINESS.
18,000 CORPORATIONS CLAIM THAT
BUSINESS.
THIS BUILDING IS THEIR PLACE OF
IT GIVES A WHOLE NEW MEANING TO
THE PHRASE "SMALL BUSINESS" TO
IMAGINE 18,000 CORPORATIONS
FITTING INTO THAT LITTLE
BUILDING.
AS BUDGET COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
CONRAD HAS POINTED OUT, THE ONLY
BUSINESS GOING ON DOWN THERE IN
THE CAYMAN ISLANDS IS FUNNY
BUSINESS, MONKEY BUSINESS WITH
THE CORPORATION TAX CODE.
IT IS CORPORATIONS GETTING OUT
OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY OF
PAYING TAXES TO THIS COUNTRY BY
HIDING BEHIND PHONY SHELL
CORPORATIONS DOWN IN THE CAYMAN
ISLANDS.
IT'S ESTIMATED TO COST US AS
MUCH AS $100 BILLION EACH YEAR
TO PUT UP WITH THIS OFFSHORING
TAX SHELTER OF INCOME.
TO KEEP OUR SHIP OF STATE
AFLOAT, THE REPUBLICANS ARE
ASKING US TO CUT INVESTMENTS IN
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL
CURE DISEASE FOR AMERICANS AND
FOR MANKIND.
AND AT THE SAME TIME THEY'RE
FIGHTING TO PROTECT CORPORATIONS
THAT HIDE IN OFFSHORE TAX HAVENS
SO THE HONEST AMERICAN TAXPAYER
HAS TO CARRY THE BURDEN IN THEIR
PLACE.
HERE'S ANOTHER BUILDING WITH A
STORY TO TELL.
THIS IS THE HELMSLEY BUILDING ON
PARK AVENUE IN NEW YORK CITY.
WE REMEMBER LEE -- LEONA
HELMSLEY WHO SAID TAXES ARE FOR
THE LITTLE PEOPLE TO PAY.
WE KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE
HELMSLEY BUILDING AND ITS TAXES
BECAUSE THIS BUILDING IS LARGE
ENOUGH TO HAVE ITS OWN ZIP CODE.
AND THE I.R.S. COMPILES TAX
INFORMATION BY ZIP CODE.
SO WE KNOW FROM I.R.S. ACTUAL
INFORMATION WHAT THE WEALTHY AND
SUCCESSFUL INDIVIDUALS AND
CORPORATIONS THAT CALL THIS
BUILDING HOME PAY IN FEDERAL TAX
EACH YEAR.
AND GUESS WHAT WE KNOW?
WE KNOW THAT IN THE LAST YEAR
THAT IS REPORTED FOR WHICH THIS
HAS BEEN PULLED OUT, WHICH WAS
2007, THE OCCUPANTS TOGETHER OF
THIS BUILDING, THE HELMSLEY
BUILDING, PAID A $14.7% TOTAL
FEDERAL TAX RATE.
ACTUALLY PAID 14.7%.
MR. PRESIDENT, THE AVERAGE
AMERICAN TAXPAYER, THE AVERAGE
MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICAN PAYS FAR
HIGHER THAN THAT.
WE HEAR A LOT OF TALK ABOUT HOW
HIGH THE COOPERATE, THE TAX
RATES ARE FOR WEALTHY AMERICANS.
IN REAL LIFE, WHEN YOU GO TO
ACTUAL EXAMPLES, 14.7%.
HOW DOES THAT COMPARE, FOR
INSTANCE, TO THE PEOPLE WHO WORK
IN THAT BUILDING, THE AVERAGE
NEW YORK CITY JANITOR OR DOOR
MAN OR SECURITY GUARD?
WELL, FAR, FAR LOWER.
THEY ALL PAY TAX RATES IN THE
20% TO 25% RANGE; EVEN HIGHER IN
SOME CASES ON AVERAGE.
FAR HIGHER THAN THE HIGH-INCOME
OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING.
AND IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE THIS
IS THE HELMSLEY BUILDING THAT
THIS IS TRUE.
THIS IS NOT SOME ANOMALY.
EACH YEAR THE INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE PUBLISHES A REPORT THAT
DETAILS THE TAXES PAID BY THE
HIGHEST-EARNING 400 AMERICANS.
I SPOKE EARLIER THIS YEAR ON
LAST YEAR'S REPORT WHICH WAS
BASED ON THAT SAME YEAR STATUS,
2007.
IN THAT YEAR THESE SUPER-HIGH
INCOME EARNERS, NEARLY A THIRD
OF A BILLION DOLLARS -- WITH A
"B" -- THIRD OF A BILLION
DOLLARS EARNED IN ONE YEAR,
2007.
ON AVERAGE, ALL 400 OF THEM.
IN THAT YEAR THESE SUPER-HIGH
INCOME EARNERS PAID A LOWER TAX
RATE THAN AN AVERAGE HOSPITAL
ORDERLY WHO IS A SINGLE FILER
PUSHING THE CART DOWN THE
HALLWAYS AT MIDNIGHT OF RHODE
ISLAND HOSPITAL.
THEY PAID A LOWER TAX RATE ON
ORDERLY.
THEIR INCOMES THAN THAT HOSPITAL
IN MAY, THE I.R.S. PUBLISHED
DATA ON THE TOP 400 TAXPAYERS
FOR 2008.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT
HAPPENED IN THIS MOST RECENT
YEAR THAT THEY HAVE CATEGORIZED.
IN 2008 THE TOP 400 TOOK HOME AN
AVERAGE OF $270 MILLION EACH,
DOLLARS EACH.
MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A BILLION
WE CAN AND DO APPLAUD THE
SUCCESS OF THESE INDIVIDUALS.
IT IS REALLY THE AMERICAN DREAM
TO MAKE MORE THAN $225 MILLION
IN A SINGLE YEAR.
ON AVERAGE THEY PAID AN AVERAGE
FEDERAL TAX RATE OF JUST 18.2%.
WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME AROUND
HERE DEBATING WHETHER THE TOP
INCOME TAX RATE SHOULD BE 35% OR
39.6%.
FOLKS, THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY
PAID.
THE TAX CODE IS FILLED WITH
SPECIAL PROVISIONS, THAT TEND TO
EXCLUSIVELY OR
DISPROPORTIONATELY BENEFIT THE
WEALTHY, SO THE TOP 400 INCOME
18.2%.
EARNERS PAID AN AVERAGE OF
A SINGLE FILER AT $39,000 --
$39,350 PAYS THE SAME TAX RATE.
THAT'S WHERE YOU MATCH THE
PEOPLE MAKING $225 MILLION MAKE.
AND THOSE OF US WHO ARE IN
BETWEEN THE TRUCK DRIVER AND
THOSE UBER BILLIONAIRES PAY FAR,
FAR HIGHER RATES.
THE AVERAGE TRUCK DRIVER IN
RHODE ISLAND, ACCORDING TO THE
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, IS
PAID $40,200, WHICH MEANS THAT
THE AVERAGE TRUCK DRIVER IS
PAYING AN AS HIGH OR HIGHER RATE
THAN THESE TOP 400 INCOME
EARNERS EARNING OVER A QUARTER
OF A BILLION DOLLARS.
TO KEEP OUR SHIP OF STATE
AFLOAT, THE REPUBLICANS ARE
ASKING US TO CUT EMPLOYMENT AND
TRAINING SUPPORT AOT A TIME OF
RECORD JOBLESSNESS WHILE THEY
CONTINUE TO FIGHT TO MAKE SURE
THAT PEOPLE MAKING $225 MILLION
A YEAR PAY LOWER FEDERAL TAX
RATES THAN MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICAN
FAMILIES.
WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE,
EVERYONE AGREES THAT THERE NEEDS
TO BE CUTS AND EVERYONE AGREES
THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO TAX
INCREASES ON MIDDLE-CLASS
AMERICAN FAMILIES MAKING UP TO
$250,000 A YEAR.
THAT'S ALREADY AGREED TO.
THOSE CONCERNS ARE NOT AN ISSUE.
WHAT'S AT ISSUE IS THAT THE
REPUBLICANS ARE WILLING TO SINK
THE SHIP OF STATE TO DEFEND TAX
RATES FOR BILLIONAIRES THAT ARE
LOWER THAN THOSE PAID BY REGULAR
HARDWORKING AMERICANS.
THE REPUBLICANS ARE WILLING TO
SINK THE SHIP OF STATE TO DEFEND
SPECIAL INTEREST LOOPHOLES IN
THE TAX CODE WON BY BIG
CORPORATE LOBBYISTS.
IN EFFECT, EARMARKS.
EARMARKS THAT JUST HAPPEN TO BE
IN THE TAX SIDE OF THE BUDGET
RATHER THAN IN THE SPENDING SIDE
OF THE BUDGET.
THE REPUBLICANS ARE WILLING TO
SINK THE SHIP OF STATE TO DEFEND
OFFSHORE HAVENS FOR CORPORATIONS
AND HIGH-INCOME EARNERS TO DODGE
TAXES.
THAT'S WHERE THEY'VE CHOSEN TO
STAND AND FIGHT.
THAT IS WHERE THE AGREEMENT --
THIS AGREEMENT IS.
NOT FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS THAT IS
THE BACKBONE OF OUR NATION BUT
FOR THE SPECIAL INTERESTS, THE
BIG CORPORATIONS AND THE ULTRA
RICH.
WHEN YOU SAY THAT REVENUES
CANNOT BE ON THE TABLE, THAT IS
WHO YOU ARE PROTECTING.
THAT IS JUST A FACT.
THEY SAY THAT IT'S TAX INCREASES
THAT THEY'RE PROTECTING AGAINST.
THE QUESTION AMERICANS SHOULD
ASK WHEN THEY HEAR THAT IS: TAX
INCREASES FOR WHOM?
FOR THE CORPORATE LOBBYISTS THAT
DROVE DOWN CORPORATE TAXES TO
THE POINT WHERE SIGNIFICANT
NUMBERS OF AMERICAN CORPORATIONS
DON'T PAY A DOLLAR IN TAXES?
YEAH, THERE SHOULD BE TAX
INCREASES THERE.
WE SHOULD CLOSE THOSE LOOPHOLES.
TAX INCREASES FOR PEOPLE MAKING
MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A BILLION
WHO PAY LESS THAN THE AVERAGE
WORKING-CLASS FAMILY ON A RATE,
YEAH, THERE SHOULD BE TAX
INCREASES THERE.
BUT THAT'S JUST IN THE SPIRIT OF
FAIRNESS.
MR. PRESIDENT, IT'S SIMPLY
INEXCUSABLE THAT OUR TAX SYSTEM
PERMITS BILLIONAIRES TO PAY
LOWER TAX RATES THAN TRUCK
DRIVERS AND ALLOWS SPH FT MOST
PROFITABLE COMPANIES IN THE
WORLD TO PAY LITTLE OR NO TAXES
TO SUPPORT OUR NATION.
EVEN IF WE HAD NO BUDGET
DEFICITS, FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY
WOULD DEMAND WE ADDRESS THESE
INEXCUSABLE DISCREPANCIES.
OUR BUDGET CRISIS, HOWEVER,
BRINGS NEW URGENCY TO THE
PROBLEM AS WE CONTINUE TO DEBATE
HOPE THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
WAYS TO CLOSE THE BUDGET GAP, I
AND THE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE
WILL REVISIT THE POTENTIAL TO
SIGNIFICANTLY CUT THE DEFICIT BY
ADDRESSING THE TAX LOOPHOLES,
TAX GIMMICKS AND, FRANKLY,
OUTRIGHT INJUSTICE TO THE
ORDINARY TAXPAYER THAT THEY ARE
NOW DEFENDING.
I THANK THE CHAIR, AND I YIELD
THE FLOOR.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY.
I ASK, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO PROCEED FOR
A FEW MOMENTS AS IF IN MORNING
BUSINESS.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
IF THIS WEEK
HAS SHOWN US ANYTHING AT ALL,
IT'S THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
CAN'T WAIT ON DEMOCRATS TO DO
THE RIGHT THING WHEN IT COMES TO
SPENDING AND DEBT AND PUTTING US
ON A PATH TO BALANCE.
SO TODAY REPUBLICANS ARE
BEGINNING THE RULE 14 PROCESS ON
A BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT.
A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
WOULD REQUIRE THAT LAWMAKERS
HAVE.
STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T
AND WHEN WE RETURN FROM THE JULY
4 BREAK, WE'LL FIGHT ON AN
OPPORTUNITY -- WE'LL FIGHT FOR
AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE FOR IT.
WE'VE HAD A CHANCE THIS WEEK TO
SEE HOW DEMOCRATS IN WASHINGTON
WANT TO DEAL WITH THE FISCAL
MESS THEY'VE HELPED CREATE BY
FORCING THE TAXPAYERS AND THE
JOB CREATORS TO ACTUALLY BEAR
THE BURDEN.
WELL, REPUBLICANS THINK IT'S
ABOUT TIME WASHINGTON BEARS THE
BURDEN FOR A CHANGE.
LET WASHINGTON FIND A WAY TO
BALANCE THE BOOKS ON ITS OWN.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE PAID
ENOUGH OF A PRICE OVER THE PAST
FEW YEARS FOR WASHINGTON'S
RECKLESSNESS.
REPUBLICANS AREN'T GOING TO
ALLOW DEMOCRATS TO MAKE THEM PAY
EVEN MORE.
SPEAKER BOEHNER COMMITED TO A
BALANCED BUDGET VOTE IN JULY, SO
THE SPEAKER AND I ARE UNITED IN
THIS EFFORT.
AMERICANS CAN EXPECT ALL 47
REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE TO
SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.
IT'S TIME TO PUT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE BACK AT THE HELM OF OUR
SHIP OF STATE.
AND IF THAT'S WHAT THIS VOTE
ACHIEVES, THEN THE DEBATE WE'RE
HAVING WILL HAVE BEEN WELL WORTH
IT.
IF WASHINGTON IS FORCED TO
FINALLY REFORM ITS WASTE, WE'LL
ALL LOOK BACK AND SAY THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE INDEED WON THIS
DEBATE AND WE'LL SAY THE
BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT WAS
JUST THE THING WE NEEDED TO GET
OUR HOUSE IN ORDER.
BROKE OR BALANCED, THAT'S THE
CHOICE.
NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, I AM GOING
TO RULE 14, THE PROPOSAL.
I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE IT YET.
YOU SHOULD HAVE IT MOMENTARILY.
IT HAS MIRACULOUSLY
APPEARED.
I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A JOINT
RESOLUTION AT THE DESK AND I ASK
ITS FIRST READING.
THE CLERK
WILL READ THE TITLE OF THE BILL
FOR THE FIRST TIME.
SENATE JOINT
RESOLUTION 23, PROPOSING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES RELATIVE TO
BALANCING THE BUDGET.
I NOW ASK FOR A
SECOND READING, AND IN ORDER TO
PLACE THE JOINT RESOLUTION ON
THE CALENDAR UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF RULE 14, I OBJECT
TO MY OWN REQUEST.
OBJECTION
IS HEARD.
THE BILL WILL BE READ FOR THE
SECOND TIME ON THE NEXT
LEGISLATIVE DAY.
I YIELD THE
FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
I ASK UNANIMOUS
SENATOR FROM WYOMING.
CONSENT TO SPEAK FOR UP TO 15
BUSINESS.
MINUTES AS IF IN MORNING
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I COME HERE TODAY
TO COMPLIMENT THE MINORITY
LEADER, SENATOR McCONNELL, FOR
HIS RESOLUTION IN OUR EFFORT TO
PUT A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
ONTO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND I -- I COME
HERE TODAY JUST TO TELL YOU A
LITTLE STORY ABOUT A FRIEND OF
MINE FROM DOUGLAS, WYOMING.
I WAS IN DOUGLAS ON MEMORIAL
DAY.
EVERY YEAR, MEMORIAL DAY IN
DOUGLAS, THEY HAVE A SUNRISE
CEREMONY, SERVICES IN THE
CEMETERY WHERE THEY RAISE THE
FLAG, GO THROUGH THE NAMES OF
ALL OF THE VETERANS FROM
CONVERSE COUNTY WHO HAVE PASSED
IN THE LAST YEAR, THE FLAG BACK
AT HALF STAFF, 21-GUN SALUTE,
AND A TIME FOR PEOPLE TO COME
TOGETHER AND THINK ABOUT THIS
GREAT NATION AND HONOR THOSE WHO
HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES.
AFTER THE -- AFTER THE CEREMONY
THIS YEAR, WE'RE LEAVING THE
CEMETERY, MY FRIEND BERNIE
SEBALM STOPPED BY ME, AND SAID,
YOU KNOW, SENATOR -- WE HAVE
KNOWN EACH OTHER A LONG TIME.
HE IS ON MEDICARE, SOCIAL
SECURITY, LIVED A LONG LIFE,
CONTRIBUTED TO THE COMMUNITY.
HE SAID I DON'T CARE IF YOU DO A
NUMBER OF THINGS, RAISE TAXES,
CUT MEDICARE, TAKE AWAY SOCIAL
SECURITY, AS LONG AS YOU USE IT
TO PAY OFF THIS DEBT, THIS
THIS $14 TRILLION DEBT.
I SAID BERNIE, THE PROBLEM IS IF
CONGRESS EVER DOES SOMETHING
LIKE THAT, THEY'RE GOING TO GET
THE MONEY AND THEY'RE JUST GOING
TO SPEND IT.
AND THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO
DO IS AMEND THE CONSTITUTION SO
BUDGET.
THAT WE ACTUALLY BALANCE THE
THEN YOU CAN START TALKING ABOUT
WAYS TO PAY OFF THIS INCREDIBLE
DEBT THAT WE HAVE, BUT IN
WYOMING WE LIVE WITHIN OUR
MEANS, BALANCE THE BUDGET EVERY
YEAR, AND IT HAS PAID HUGE
DIVIDENDS FOR OUR STATE.
YOU KNOW, YOU THINK ABOUT THE
CONSTITUTION AND OUR FOUNDING
FATHERS PRODUCED THAT GREATEST
GOVERNING DOCUMENT, IN MY
OPINION, EVER CONCEIVED.
IT WAS WRITTEN AT A TIME WHEN
OUR COUNTRY'S FUTURE WAS IN
SERIOUS DOUBT, WHEN OUR COUNTRY
FACED COUNTLESS THREATS FROM
ABROAD, THREATS THAT WERE
BECOMING INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT
TO CONFRONT.
AND WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
LACKED BOTH THE STRUCTURE AND
THE FOUNDATION TO DO ANYTHING
ABOUT IT, BUT THERE WE HAD THE
CONSTITUTION, WRITTEN IN PART AS
A RESPONSE TO THOSE CHALLENGES
OF THE DAY, AND IT HAS ENDURED
UNTIL THIS DAY.
SO AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION IS
NOT SOMETHING TO BE UNDERTAKEN
LIGHTLY.
THE CONSTITUTION IS THE HIGHEST
LAW OF THIS GREAT LAND.
IT HAS BEEN AMENDED BUT
INFREQUENTLY, AND ALMOST ALWAYS
AT A TIME OF CRISIS.
I SUPPORT A BALANCED BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION
BECAUSE NOW IS JUST SUCH A TIME.
AND WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS
WRITTEN, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO
DECIDE WHAT THE FUTURE WOULD
BEAR, SO WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN, AS
THAT TIME CAME, WE NOW HAVE TO
DECIDE WHAT SORT OF FUTURE WE
WANT FOR OUR COUNTRY.
DO WE WANT A FUTURE WHERE OUR
CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN ARE
OVERBURDENED BY DEBT, WHERE THE
U.S. DOLLAR IS BACKED BY NOTHING
MORE THAN WORTHLESS PROMISES, OR
DO WE WANT A FUTURE WHERE THE
ONLY THINGS THAT WE CAN AFFORD
TO SPEND MONEY ON, WHAT WE'RE
FACING RIGHT NOW, ENTITLEMENTS
AND INTEREST ON OUR DEBT.
DO WE WANT A FUTURE WHERE OUR
COUNTRY GOES BROKE AND A FUTURE
WHERE WASHINGTON LACKS THE
POLITICAL WILL TO DO ANYTHING
ABOUT IT?
OR, OR, MR. PRESIDENT, DO WE
WANT A FUTURE WITH LESS
SPENDING, LOWER TAXES AND MORE
ACCOUNTABILITY.
YOU KNOW, FACTS ARE STUBBORN
LIE.
THINGS, AND THE NUMBERS DO NOT
THIS MONTH, THE CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET OFFICE RELEASED A REPORT
SAYING THAT THE OUTLOOK OF
AMERICA'S DEBT IS GROWING
GRIMMER.
THE HILL NEWSPAPER PUT IT BEST
WHEN IT SAID THAT THE NEW C.B.O.
REPORT NUMBERS ARE -- QUOTE --
"MUCH WORSE THAN LAST YEAR'S
OUTLOOK.
TO ANYONE WHO DOES THE MATH,
THIS IS NOT A SURPRISE.
EVERY DAY, WASHINGTON BORROWS
BORROWS $4.1 BILLION MORE.
BORROWED OVER $4 BILLION
YESTERDAY, $4 BILLION TODAY.
WE WILL DO IT AGAIN TOMORROW.
IT'S OVER $2 MILLION A MINUTE,
EVERY MINUTE.
WASHINGTON DID THAT YESTERDAY,
IT'S DOING IT TODAY, AND WE'LL
DO IT TOMORROW.
OF EVERY DOLLAR THAT WASHINGTON
BORROWED.
SPENDS, 41 CENTS OF IT IS
MUCH OF IT IS BORROWED FROM
CHINA.
EVERY AMERICAN CHILD BORN TODAY
AND TOMORROW AND THE NEXT DAY IS
BORN WITH AN INCREDIBLE DEBT OF
OVER $45,000.
NEXT YEAR, OF EVERY DOLLAR
WASHINGTON SPENDS, 68 CENTS WILL
GO FOR SOCIAL SECURITY,
MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND INTEREST
ON THE DEBT.
IF WE AS A NATION CONTINUE DOWN
THIS PATH, WASHINGTON WILL SPEND
ALL OF WHAT IT TAKES IN ON THESE
ITEMS ALONE.
EVERYTHING ELSE, FROM DEFENSE TO
EDUCATION, WILL BE PAID FOR ON A
BUDGET OF BORROWED MONEY.
SO YOU MAY ASK WHERE IS THE
MONEY GOING TO COME FROM, AND
HOW WILL WE EVER PAY IT BACK?
WELL, A LOT OF IT IS GOING TO
COME FROM OTHER COUNTRIES,
COUNTRIES WHO DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE
OUR INTERESTS, AMERICA'S BEST
INTERESTS AT HEART.
YOU KNOW, JOHN KENNEDY STOOD
OUTSIDE THIS BUILDING IN 1961.
50 YEARS AGO HE SAID ASK NOT
WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR
YOU.
HE SAID ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR
YOUR COUNTRY.
WELL, A FEW YEARS FROM NOW, THAT
MAY CHANGE, MADAM PRESIDENT.
IT MAY CHANGE TO ASK NOT WHAT
YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU.
ASK WHAT YOUR COUNTRY MUST DO
FOR CHINA.
SO CONSIDER THIS.
WHEN JOHN KENNEDY WAS PRESIDENT,
AMERICA'S TOTAL DEBT WAS JUST
OVER $300 BILLION, AND WE ONLY
OWED 4% OF OUR DEBT TO FOREIGN
COUNTRIES.
OVER $14 TRILLION.
TODAY, OUR TOTAL DEBT IS OVER
AND, YOU KNOW, DEBT ISN'T JUST A
DISASTER FOR THE DISTANT FUTURE.
OUR DEBT, OUR CURRENT DEBT IS
IRRESPONSIBLE AND IT'S
UNSUSTAINABLE, AND, YOU KNOW,
EVEN OUR MILITARY LEADERS HAVE
CONDEMNED IT.
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS
OF STAFF, ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN,
HAS SAID -- QUOTE -- "THE
BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY IS OUR DEBT."
THE DEBT IS THE THREAT.
WE DO NOT AND WE SHOULD NOT TAKE
THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY LIGHTLY.
THE AMOUNT OF DEBT THAT WE OWE
RIGHT NOW TODAY IS SO HIGH THAT
HOME.
IT IS HURTING OUR EMPLOYMENT AT
EXPERTS TELL US THAT OUR CURRENT
DEBT IS COSTING US A MILLION
JOBS IN AMERICA.
WELL, SPENDING LIKE THIS MAKES
IT HARDER FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR
TO CREATE NEW JOBS.
BECAUSE OF THIS, IT'S HARDER FOR
AMERICAN FAMILIES TO BUY GAS, TO
BUY GROCERIES, TO BUY CARS,
HOMES, PAY TUITION FOR THE KIDS
TO GO TO COLLEGE, AND IT IS
HARDER, IT IS HARDER TO CREATE
JOBS FOR THOSE KIDS WHO WILL BE
GRADUATING THIS YEAR AND NEXT
YEAR AND EVERY YEAR UNTIL WE GET
THE SPENDING UNDER CONTROL.
NOW, EVERYONE CLAIMS FROM
THIS -- IN THIS BODY CLAIMS TO
UNDERSTAND THAT THE SITUATION IS
IRRESPONSIBLE AND IS
UNSUSTAINABLE.
YOU KNOW, BACK IN FEBRUARY OF
2009, THE PRESIDENT CALLED
EXPERTS TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR
WHAT HE CALLED A -- QUOTE --
"FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY SUMMIT."
IN HIS OPENING REMARKS, THIS IS
WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAD TO SAY.
HE SAID -- "CONTRARY TO THE
PREVAILING WISDOM IN WASHINGTON
THESE PAST FEW YEARS, WE CAN'T
SIMPLY SPEND AS WE PLEASE AND
DEFER THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE
NEXT BUDGET, THE NEXT
ADMINISTRATION OR THE NEXT
GENERATION."
WELL, I AGREED WITH THE
HE WAS RIGHT.
PRESIDENT.
SO MY QUESTION IS TO THE
PRESIDENT WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
ABOUT IT?
WELL, ONE THING HE HAS DONE IS
COMMISSION.
HE HAS CALLED TOGETHER A DEBT
LATE LAST YEAR, THE DEBT
COMMISSION RELEASED THE REPORT
ON AMERICA'S FISCAL SITUATION,
AND THE FINDINGS, THE FINDINGS
WERE SOBERING.
ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, THEY
SAID -- QUOTE -- "THE REAL
PROBLEM -- THE PROBLEM IS REAL,
THE SOLUTION WILL BE PAINFUL,
THERE IS NO EASY WAY OUT,
EVERYTHING MUST BE ON THE
TABLE."
DO YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE THEY SAID?
LEAD.
THEY ALSO SAID WASHINGTON MUST
WASHINGTON HAS NOT LED.
INSTEAD, THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS
OFFERED NOTHING BUT EMPTY
PROMISES.
AS THE WHITE HOUSE MAKES PROMISE
AFTER PROMISE AND SPEECH AFTER
SPEECH WITH NO ACTION, NO ACTION
TO BACK IT UP, IT IS CLEARER
THAN EVER THAT IN WASHINGTON,
SPOKEN PROMISES HAVE BECOME
BROKEN PROMISES.
THIS PERSISTENT PUSH TO PUT OUR
FISCAL CRISIS OFF UNTIL TOMORROW
IS UNACCEPTABLE AND MUST END
NOW.
THE FIRST STEP, THE FIRST STEP
TOWARD DOING THAT WOULD BE TO
PASS AN AMENDMENT TO OUR
CONSTITUTION REQUIRING
BUDGET.
WASHINGTON TO BALANCE ITS
A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
WOULD REQUIRE WASHINGTON TO
SPEND NO MORE MONEY THAN IT
TAKES IN EACH AND EVERY YEAR.
SUCH AN AMENDMENT WOULD FORCE
WASHINGTON TO LIVE WITHIN ITS
MEANS.
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO CONTINUE TO
MORTGAGE OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE
TO PAY FOR WASHINGTON'S FISCAL
FAILURES.
SUCH AN AMENDMENT WOULD
TRANSFORM THE KIND OF
IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING THAT GOES
ON TODAY IN THIS VERY BODY INTO
AN IMPEACHABLE VIOLATION OF
EVERY LEGISLATOR'S
CONSTITUTIONAL OATH OF OFFICE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE
OVERWHELMINGLY SPOKEN ON THE
WISDOM OF THIS APPROACH.
A RECENT POLL CONDUCTED BY SACHS
AMERICANS SUPPORT A BALANCED
MASON-DIXON SHOW THAT 65% OF
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO OUR
CONSTITUTION.
AND 45% SAID THEY WOULD BE MORE
LIKELY TO VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE
WHO DID SO.
NOW, OF THOSE, 68% OF THEM WERE
INDEPENDENTS, BUT THERE IS
SUPPORT FOR THIS AMONG
REPUBLICANS, AMONG INDEPENDENTS
AND AMONG DEMOCRATS.
WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CALL
FOR WASHINGTON TO LEAD IN
NUMBERS THIS BIG, IT IS TIME FOR
WASHINGTON TO LISTEN.
EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF MY PARTY
AGREES.
ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE
THAT'S WHY ALL 47 REPUBLICAN
MEMBERS OF THIS BODY HAVE
AMENDMENT.
COSPONSORED THE BALANCED BUDGET
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE BEHIND
US, AND THEY WANT US TO ACT.
MEANWHILE, THE ADMINISTRATION
AND ITS ALLIES ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE AISLE HAVE OFFERED
NOTHING BUT MORE EMPTY RHETORIC,
MORE OF THE SAME TAX-AND-SPEND
POLICIES THAT MADE THIS ECONOMIC
SITUATION WORSE.
YOU TAKE A LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE
AND WHERE WE HAVE BEEN.
THEY HAVE MADE IT WORSE.
I'M REMINDED OF A QUOTE FROM
RONALD REAGAN.
HE SAID IF THE BIG SPENDERS GET
THEIR WAY, THEY WILL CHARGE
EVERYTHING TO YOUR TAXPAYERS'
EXPRESS CARD, HE SAID, AND
BELIEVE ME, THEY WILL NEVER
LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT.
THE BIG SPENDERS CAN GET AWAY
WITH CHARGING EVERYTHING TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE'S TAXPAYER
EXPRESS CARD BECAUSE NO ONE, NO
ONE IS FORCING THEM TO LOOK AT
THE BILLS.
NOW THOSE BILLS ARE COMING DUE,
AND THIS ADMINISTRATION AND ITS
LIBERAL ALLIES WANT A NEW
TAXPAYERS' EXPRESS CARD AND A
BLANK CHECK.
THEY WANT A BLANK CHECK TO SPEND
AS THEY DESIRE, AND THEY ARE NOT
GOING TO GET IT FROM ME, NOT
WITHOUT SPECIFIC REFORMS THAT
WILL INTRODUCE ACCOUNTABILITY
INTO THIS BROKEN WASHINGTON
PROCESS.
A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT WILL
NOT SOLVE EVERY PROBLEM, BUT IT
IS A CRITICAL STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION.
IT WOULD ENSURE THAT WASHINGTON
IS CONSTITUTIONALLY OBLIGATED TO
AVOID THE RECKLESS OVERSPENDING
OF THE PAST.
OUR DEBT CRISIS DIDN'T SURFACE
OVERNIGHT, AND IT CERTAINLY
WON'T BE SOLVED WITHOUT A GREAT
DEAL OF ADDITIONAL WORK.
BEFORE ANY OF THAT WORK CAN BE
DONE, MADAM PRESIDENT,
WASHINGTON HAS TO LEARN TO LIVE
WITHIN ITS MEANS THE WAY
FAMILIES ALL ACROSS THIS GREAT
COUNTRY DO.
IT IS TIME WE SHOW THE AMERICAN
CAN TRUST THEIR
AGAIN.
GOVERNMENT WITH THEIR MONEY
IT IS TIME WE LEAD TODAY INSTEAD
OF DEFERRING LEADERSHIP UNTIL
TOMORROW.
IT IS TIME WE SHOW THE SAME
COURAGE THAT OUR FOUNDING
FATHERS DID WHEN THIS COUNTRY
COLLAPSE.
WAS ON THE VERGE OF FINANCIAL
IT IS TIME FOR A BALANCED BUDGET
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
AND THEN, MADAM PRESIDENT, I CAN
GO BACK TO MY FRIEND BERNIE AND
HIS WIFE SALLY IN DOUGLAS,
WYOMING, AND SAY BERNIE, FINALLY
IN WASHINGTON, THEY GOT IT
RIGHT.
THEY REALIZE LIKE WE DO HERE IN
WYOMING, YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN
YOUR MEANS, YOU HAVE TO BALANCE
YOUR BUDGET EVERY YEAR, EVERY
YEAR, AND THEN START WORKING ON
PAYING OFF THIS INCREDIBLE DEBT.
THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
AND I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE.
SHOULD SENATOR
HARKIN COME IN THE NEXT FEW
MINUTES, I'LL STEP ASIDE AND LET
HIM SPEAK, BUT IN THE MEANTIME,
I THOUGHT I'D SUM UP WHERE WE
HAVE COME THIS WEEK ON THE
LEGISLATION THAT'S BEEN BEFORE
THE BODY SINCE LATE LAST WEEK
AND THAT WAS TO REDUCE THE
NUMBER OF SENATE CONFIRMATIONS
OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS SO
THAT THE SENATE CAN EXERCISE ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF ADVISE
AND CONSENT MORE EFFECTIVELY.
THIS ALL GOES BACK TO OUR -- OUR
CONSTITUTION, THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 2, SECTION
2, WHICH SAYS THAT ONE OF THE
MOST IMPORTANT DUTIES OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE IS --
QUOTE -- "ITS ADVICE AND CONSENT
RESPONSIBILITY."
THAT'S ONE OF THE WELL-KNOWN
FUNCTIONS OF THE SENATE.
A FAMOUS BOOK WAS WRITTEN ABOUT
ADVISE AND CONSENT.
AND THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT
THE PRESIDENT SHALL NOMINATE,
WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF
THE SENATE, AMBASSADORS,
MINISTERS, JUDGES, OTHER
OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES.
AND TODAY, THERE ARE ABOUT 1,400
OF THOSE -- OF THOSE OFFICERS.
WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY WAS
MORE OR LESS.
PRESIDENT, THERE WERE ABOUT 280,
AND UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON,
THERE WERE ABOUT 1,100, MORE OR
LESS.
IT CONTINUALLY GOES UP.
AND THIS INCLUDES A LARGE NUMBER
OF PART-TIME ADVISORY POSITIONS,
SUCH AS THE LIBRARY ADVISORY
BOARD AND A VARIETY OF OTHER
BOARDS, WHICH IS WHY THE
FOUNDERS PUT INTO THE
CONSTITUTION ANOTHER PROVISION
WHICH SAYS THAT CONGRESS MAY BY
LAW INVEST THE APPOINTMENT OF
SUCH INFERIOR OFFICERS AS THEY
THINK PROPER AND THE PRESIDENT
ALONE AND THE COURTS OF LAW OR
IN THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS.
SO IT'S UP TO US TO MAKE SURE WE
DON'T TRIVIALIZE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY WE
HAVE SO WE DEFINE THE NUMBER OF
MEN AND WOMEN WHOM THE PRESIDENT
NOMINATES, WHO REQUIRE ADVISE
AND CONSENT, AND WE DEFINE THE
ONES WHO DON'T.
WE'VE NOT DONE A VERY GOOD JOB
OF DECIDING WHICH ONES DID NOT.
OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS, THE
SENATE HAS DECIDED TO REMOVE 169
OF THE 1,400 NOMINATIONS FROM
THE ADVISE AND CONSENT
REQUIREMENT.
IT IS DEBATING RIGHT NOW
REMOVING ANOTHER 233 FULL OR
PART-TIME POSITIONS AND PUTTING
THEM IN AN EXPEDITED PROCESS SO
THAT WE WILL HAVE AFFECTED 450
OR SO OF THE 1,400 NOMINATIONS,
EITHER BY REMOVING THEM FROM
ADVISE AND CONSENT OR SPEEDING
UP THE PROCESS.
THIS WILL PERMIT US TO FOCUS
MORE ATTENTION ON THE JOB THAT
WE'RE SENT HERE TO DO, WHICH IS
TO DO A GOOD JOB OF EVALUATING
THE MOST IMPORTANT OFFICES.
JUST ONE INDICATION OF HOW WE'VE
BEEN TRIVIALIZING THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO DECIDE WHO
DOES DESERVE ADVISE AND CONSENT
AND WHO DOESN'T IS THAT ONLY
ABOUT 3% OF ALL OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS IN THE
LAST CONGRESS ACTUALLY WERE
DEEMED IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO HAVE
A ROLL CALL VOTE HERE ON THE
FLOOR OF THE SENATE.
97% WERE DEEMED NOT IMPORTANT
ENOUGH.
AND, OF COURSE, THEY WERE NOT.
THEY WERE VALUABLE PEOPLE BUT
THEY WERE PART-TIME ADVISORY
BOARD MEMBERS WHO WERE PART OF A
BOARD WHERE AN EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, FOR EXAMPLE, ALREADY
REPORTED TO SOMEONE WHO WAS
CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE.
WE HAD EXAMPLES OF -- OF
POSITIONS BEING CONFIRMED BY THE
SENATE, WHO REPORTED TO SOMEONE
WHO REPORTED TO SOMEONE WHO
REPORTED TO SOMEONE, WHO
REPORTED TO SOMEONE ELSE, ALL OF
CONSENT.
THEM CONFIRMED BY ADVISE AND
SO WE'VE MADE A MODEST STEP IN
THE DIRECTION OF HELPING US
EXECUTE, EXERCISE OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY UNDER
ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2 IN A MORE
EFFECTIVE WAY.
NOW, THIS RESOLUTION THAT WE'RE
DEBATING TODAY, UNLIKE THE BILL
THIS MORNING, DOES NOT REMOVE
ONE SINGLE PERSON FROM THE RIG
OF ADVISE AND CONSENT.
IT EXPEDITES IT, EXPEDITES IT IN
THE FOLLOWING WAY.
THE PRESIDENT'S NOMINATION WOULD
COME TO THE DESK HERE.
THIS IS AFTER THE PRESIDENT HAS
DONE ALL OF ITS VETTING.
THEN THE RELEVANT COMMITTEE --
LET'S SAY IT'S THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE OR THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE -- WOULD GO THROUGH
ITS USUAL EXERCISE OF ASKING THE
NOMINEE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
AND -- AND PROVIDE ALL THAT
INFORMATION.
WHEN THAT NOMINATION FIRST COMES
HERE, THAT'S -- THAT INFORMATION
IS LISTED ON THE DAILY REPORTS
THAT WE SENATORS AND STAFF READ.
THEN WHEN THE INFORMATION IS ALL
GATHERED BY THE RELEVANT
COMMITTEE, THAT'S INDICATED.
THEN THERE'S A FULL TEN DAYS FOR
ALL OF US TO LOOK AT THAT.
AND IF A SINGLE SENATOR SAYS,
I'D LIKE FOR THIS NOMINEE TO GO
ON TO THE COMMITTEE FOR A
HEARING AND THEN FOR THE
TRADITIONAL MARKUP, THAT
HAPPENS.
BUT IF ALL 100 SENATORS SAY,
I'VE LOOKED AT THE INFORMATION
AND IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO GO TO
THAT EXTRA TIME AND EXPENSE AND
DELAY, THEN IT MOVES TO THE
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR, THE MAJORITY
LEADER CAN BRING IT UP WHENEVER
HE OR SHE WISHES.
SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS, IN 450
CASES, APPROXIMATELY, WE HAVE
AFFECTED THE 1,400 NOMINATIONS
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO ADVISE AND
CONSENT.
WE'VE EITHER ELIMINATED THE
REQUIREMENT OR WE'VE EXPEDITED
THE PROCESS AND MADE IT POSSIBLE
FOR US TO FOCUS MORE ATTENTION
ON THOSE DESERVING THE MOST
IMPORTANT ATTENTION.
ONE OTHER THING -- AND I SEE THE
SENATOR FROM OREGON HERE.
PERHAPS HE WISHES TO SPEAK SO
I'LL CONCLUDE MY REMARKS WITH
THESE.
THERE'S ONE OTHER IMPORTANT
ASPECT THAT WE DEAL WITH HERE
AND IT MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT
THING WE CAN DO AND THAT IS TO
DEAL WITH -- I MEAN, THE FIRST
ONE I DISCUSSED WAS SLOWING DOWN
THE TRIVIALIZATION OF THE
SENATE'S ADVISE AND CONSENT
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.
THAT'S WHAT THE FIRST PART OF
WHAT WE'RE DOING DOES.
THE BILL DID THAT, THAT WE'VE
ALREADY PASSED.
THE RESOLUTION DOES THAT THAT
WE'RE NOW DEBATING.
BUT THE SECOND ASPECT -- AND
THAT WAS DEALT WITH IN THE BILL
THIS MORNING -- IS DEALING WITH
THE PHENOMENON OF WHAT I CALL
INNOCENT UNTIL NOMINATED.
WE HAVE QUOPPED A --
WE HAVE DEVELOPED A PRACTICE IN
THIS TIME OF MAKING IT -- OF
HAVING THE PRESIDENT SELECT AN
OTHERWISE UNSUSPECTING
DISTINGUISHED CITIZEN FROM SIOUX
CITY OR NASHVILLE OR *** OR
SACRAMENTO -- OR BANGOR OR
SACRAMENTO, AND AFTER GOING
THROUGH AN F.B.I. CHECK AND
OTHER THINGS, NOMINATING THAT
PERSON FOR SOME POSITION
DESERVING ADVISE AND CONSENT, BY
THE TIME THAT PERSON MAKES HIS
OR HER WAY THROUGH ALL OF THE
EXECUTIVE VETTING PROCESS, BY
THE TIME PEOPLE POUR OVER THE
TAX RETURNS AND YOU ANSWER
MULTIPLE QUESTIONS, OFTEN THE
SAME QUESTION ASKED IN DIFFERENT
WAYS, YOU'VE LIKELY GOT AN
INACCURACY IN THERE SOMEWHERE.
THEN YOUR NAME IS SENT UP HERE
AND THE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATES
YOU AND ASKS YOU MANY OF THE
SAME QUESTIONS.
YOU MIGHT HAVE AN INCONSISTENCY
THERE.
THEN YOU SHOW UP FOR A
PUBLICIZED HEARING WITH YOUR
FAMILY AND YOU'RE SITTING THERE
AND ALL A SUDDEN YOU'RE MADE OUT
TO BE A COMMON CRIMINAL BECAUSE
YOU MADE A MISTAKE TRYING TO
DECIPHER ALL THOSE MULTIPLE
FORMS.
I'VE CITED ON THIS FLOOR BEFORE
THAT FORMER MAJORITY LEADER OF
THE UNITED STATES SENATE, HOWARD
BAKE, AND HIS WIFE, FORMER
SENATOR NANCY KASSEBAUM, WENT TO
JAPAN A FEW YEARS AGO AS
PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH'S
NOMINEE TO -- TO -- AS
AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN, SENATOR
BAKER WAS.
NOW, ALL OF US KNEW SENATOR
BAKER.
HE WAS VOTED BY THE SENATE THE
DEMOCRATS AS WELL AS THE
MOST ADMIRED SENATOR BY THE
REPUBLICANS WHEN HE WAS HERE.
ALL THE SENATORS WHO WERE HERE
AT THE TIME KNEW SENATOR
KASSEBAUM, HIS WIFE, YET SENATOR
BAKER TOLD ME HE HAD TO SPEND
$250,000 IN LEGAL AND ACCOUNTING
FEES JUST TO MAKE HIS WAY
CAREFULLY THROUGH THE NOMINATION
PROCESS, ALL THE EXECUTIVE
VETTING AND ALL OF THE VETTING
THAT THE COMMITTEES DID, JUST SO
HE WOULD NOT MAKE A MISTAKE AND
HE WOULDN'T BE -- HE -- JUST SO
HE WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT TO THIS
INNOCENT UNTIL NOMINATED
SYNDROME.
WHAT THE BILL WE PASSED THIS
MORNING DOES IS VERY SIMPLE,
VERY STRAIGHT STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT SIMPLY ESTABLISHES A PROCESS.
IF THE RESOLUTION AND THE BILL
SHOULD PASS THE HOUSE -- IF THE
BILL SHOULD PASS THE HOUSE AND
BE SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT, THEN
WE WOULD HAVE A WORKING GROUP
PEOPLE APPOINTED BY THE SENATE,
EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
PEOPLE APPOINTED BY THE
WE HAVE WORK TOGETHER TO TRY TO
SIMPLIFY THE EXECUTIVE FORMS
AND -- AND THE CONGRESSIONAL
FORMS THAT WE USE.
SEE IF WE COULD HAVE A -- A
SMART FORM, A SIMPLE FORM THAT
PERHAPS WE COULD ALL USE.
AND THEN AT LEAST FOR THE MOST
PART, A NOMINEE, WHEN ASKED TO
BE NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT,
COULD FILL OUT A SINGLE FORM
WHICH COULD THEN BE USED BY ALL
OF US WHO NEED TO KNOW BASIC
INFORMATION, SUCH AS WHAT WAS
YOUR INCOME LAST YEAR.
AND WE CAN ASK THE QUESTION, DO
WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW EVERY
SINGLE RESIDENCE ADDRESS THAT
YOU EVER HAD IN YOUR LIFE IF
YOU'RE GOING TO BE ON AN
ADVISORY BOARD, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR
THE UNITED STATES?
SO THAT PRACTICE WILL HAVE TO BE
DONE WITH RESPECT TO THE
CONSTITUTION AND SEPARATION OF
POWERS.
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WILL HAVE
TO CREATE ITS OWN DOCUMENTS.
THE SENATE WILL HAVE TO CREATE
ITS OWN.
BUT IF WE WORK TOGETHER AND WE
CREATE A SMART FORM, SENATOR
COLLINS AND SENATOR LIEBERMAN
HAVE MADE IMPORTANT
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THAT -- TO THAT
PROCESS, ABOUT HOW CANDIDATES
ARE VETTED, WHAT KIND OF FORMS
THEY FILL OUT.
WE WILL NOT ONLY HAVE SLOWED
DOWN THE TRIVIALIZATION OF THE
SENATE'S DUTY OF ADVISE AND
CONSENT BY DOING A BETTER JOB OF
DECIDING WHO NOT TO CONFIRM,
WE'LL ALSO REDUCE THE PHENOMENON
OF INNOCENT UNTIL NOMINATED,
WHICH HAS NOT ONLY MADE IT
DIFFICULT FOR PRESIDENTS TO
STAFF THE GOVERNMENT, DELAYED
THEIR ABILITY TO FORM A
GOVERNMENT BUT UNNECESSARILY
HARASSED OTHERWISE HONORABLE MEN
AND WOMEN WHO ARE ASKED TO SERVE
THEIR GOVERNMENT.
I THANK THE PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM OREGON MR. MERKLEY:
MADAM PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT I BE RECOGNIZED FOR TEN
MINUTES, SENATOR COLLINS BE
RECOGNIZED FOLLOWING MY REMARKS.
AND FURTHER, THAT FOLLOWING
SENATOR COLLINS' REMARKS, THE
SENATE RECESS UNTIL 5:30 P.M.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
AND I ALSO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT
BUSINESS.
TO SPEAK AS IF IN MORNING
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
WE HAVE A LOT OF
DISCUSSION ON THE FLOOR OF THIS
CHAMBER ABOUT THE CHALLENGE OF
OUR DEFICIT AND OUR DEBT, AND
THESE ARE, INDEED, VERY
IMPORTANT ISSUES.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER
EXACTLY HOW WE GOT HERE BECAUSE
IT WAS ONLY A DECADE AGO THAT WE
WERE RUNNING LARGE SURPLUSES AT
ADMINISTRATION.
THE CONCLUSION OF THE CLINTON
IN FACT, THESE SURPLUSES WERE SO
LARGE THAT ECONOMISTS WERE
STARTING TO ARGUE OVER JUST WHAT
WOULD YOU DO IF WE PAID OFF OUR
ENTIRE DEBT?
DIDN'T THERE NEED TO BE
INSTRUMENTS OF LAST RESORT, OF
GREAT SECURITY, LIKE TREASURY
BONDS, AND DIDN'T WE NEED TO
PRESERVE SOME DEFICIT OR DEBT IN
ORDER TO HAVE THAT INSTRUMENT
AVAILABLE AS A STABILIZING
SOCIETY -- STABILIZER IN
SOCIETY?
WELL, WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO
HAVE THAT DEBATE NOW?
I REMEMBER BEING ABSOLUTELY
THRILLED THAT WE WERE GOING TO
TURN OVER A DEBT-FREE AMERICA TO
OUR CHILDREN.
BUT WHAT ENSUED?
WELL, PRESIDENT BUSH HAD A
DIFFERENT VIEW.
HE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT?
LET'S SPEND THESE SURPLUSES
WE'RE GENERATING AND LET'S DO
BREAKS FOR THE BEST-OFF IN OUR
SOCIETY.
LET'S TAKE AND ESTABLISH A NEW,
MAJOR PROGRAM -- MEDICARE
PART-D -- AND NOT PAY FOR IT.
LET'S EMBARK ON WARS AROUND THIS
NATION -- AROUND THIS PLANET AND
NOT RAISE FUNDS TO PAY FOR THEM.
AND THE RESULT WAS THOSE
TREMENDOUS SURPLUSES WERE
REDUCED TO HUGE DEFICITS IN
SHORT ORDER.
INDEED, THE TEN-YEAR PROJECTION
WENT FROM A $5 TRILLION
SURPLUSES FLOWS A $5 TRIL --
SHORTFALL.
SURPLUS TO A $5 TRILLION
IT'S WHY SOME FOLKS CALL
PRESIDENT BUSH THE 10
TRILLION-DOLLAR MAN, BECAUSE HE
MANAGED TO DO $10 TRILLION WORTH
OF DAMAGE TO OUR ECONOMY.
BUT THAT WAS ONLY THE BEGINNING.
BECAUSE THEN DEREGULATION OF THE
MORTGAGE INDUSTRY RESULTED IN
PREDATORY LENDING, LIAR LOANS,
TEASER RATES THAT EXPLODED AFTER
TWO YEARS, KICKBACKS ALLOWED TO
THE ORIGINATORS SO THAT THEY
DIDN'T EVEN HAVE ANY SORT OF
FAIR PRESENTATION TO FAMILIES
NEGOTIATING THE MOST IMPORTANT
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT IN THEIR
LIFE, THEIR HOME MORTGAGE.
ANDAN THE MELTDOWN THAT CAME FROM
THAT EXTRAORDINARY REGULATORY
ABUSE RESULTED IN ANOTHER $5
TRILLION IN DEBT.
SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT HERE.
AND NOW WE HAVE A CERTAIN
PATTERN THAT WE SEE ON THIS
FLOOR IN WHICH MEMBERS OF THIS
CHAMBER, MANY OF THE MEMBERS
ACROSS THE AISLE, THEY STAND UP
AND SAY, WE WANT TO PROTECT THE
PROGRAMS FOR THE BEST OFF, BUT
WE WANT TO CUT THE BASIC
PROGRAMS THAT SERVE WORKING
AMERICANS IN OUR NATION.
AND, QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK THEY
HAVE IT EXACTLY BACKWARDS.
AND IF YOU THINK THAT I'M MAKING
THIS UP, LET'S JUST REVIEW
RECENT HISTORY.
THE DECEMBER DEAL ON THE
CONTINUING RESOLUTION THIS.
INCREASED OUR DEBT HALF A
TRILLION DOLLARS AND VIRTUALLY
EVERY MEMBER ACROSS THIS AISLE
VOTED FOR IT.
I VOTED AGAINST IT, A HALF
TRILLION-DOLLAR INCREASE AND A
BIG CHUNK OF THAT HALF
TRILLION-DOLLAR INCREASE IN OUR
DEBT WAS THERE BECAUSE OF THE
INSISTENCE ON PROVIDING THE
CONTINUATION OF THE PRESIDENT
BUSH BREAKS FOR THE BEST OFF IN
OUR SOCIETY.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW ONE CAN
RISE AND TALK ABOUT CUTTING OUR
INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE IN
AMERICA, I DON'T KNOW HOW ONE
CAN RISE AND TALK ABOUT PUTTING
-- CUTTING SUPPORT FOR THOSE WHO
ARE NEEDING TO GET FOOD FROM
FOOD BANKS AND AT THE SAME TIME
BE DEFENDING BONUS BREAKS FOR
SOCIETY.
THE VERY BEST OFF IN OUR
THE DECEMBER DEAL WAS AN ANOMALY
BECAUSE IT'S HAPPENED
REPEATEDLY.
WE HAD JUST A VOTE ON OIL AN GAS
SUBSIDIES FOR THE MOST POWERFUL
FIVE COMPANIES IN OUR ECONOMY,
FIVE VERY LARGE OIL AND GAS
COMPANIES, AND INSTEAD OF
GETTING RID OF ANACHRON ONISTIC
PROVISION THAT WAS PUT THERE
WHEN THE COSTS OR THE VALUE OF A
BARREL OF OIL WAS VERY LOW AND
THE OIL INDUSTRY SAID IT NEEDED
TO HAVE SOME SUPPORT, INSTEAD OF
CUTTING THAT, MANY IN THIS
CHAMBER VOTED TO CONTINUE IT,
CONTINUE THIS BREAK FOR THE MOST
POWERFUL CORPORATION -- A BREAK
THAT WAS DESIGNED FOR A VERY
DIFFERENT PERIOD OF TIME WHEN
OIL WASN'T $100 A BARREL BUT WAS
A FRACTION OF THAT, $20 A
BARREL.
AND, NO, THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO
RECENT CASES.
WE HAVE THE ATTACK ON MEDICARE.
INDEED, WE HAVE THE PLAN THAT
HAS BEEN WIDELY SUPPORTED BY MY
COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE AISLE,
BOTH IN IN THIS CHAMBER AND ACROSS
THE BUILDING, IN WHICH THEY SAY,
LET'S END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT
BECAUSE WE NEED TO SAVE MONEY
AND WE'RE GOING TO DO IT ON THE
BACKS OF SENIORS.
BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE A
LOOK AT THE BREAKS WE VOTED IN
OVER THE LAST QUARTER CENTURY
FOR THE BEST OFF IN OUR SOCIETY.
WELL, THIS SYSTEMATIC PLAN WORKS
LIKE THIS:
BECAUSE THESE BREAKS FOR THE
BEST OFF HAVE BEEN DONE THROUGH
THE TAX CODE, AND EVERY AMERICAN
UNDERSTANDS THAT WHETHER YOU
GIVE $5,000 IN TAX CODE OR ADS
5,000 GRANT, IT IS EXACTLY THE
SAME THING; WE HAD THAT DEBATE
OVER THE ETHANOL SUBSIDIES JUST
RECENTLY.
EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS IT IS
EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
BUT BY PUTTING THESE PROGRAMS
FOR THE WEALTHY AND
WELL-CONNECTED IN THE TAX CODE,
NOW MY COLLEAGUES ARE RISING TO
SAY, WE WILL NOT TOUCH THOSE
PROGRAMS BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE
TAX CODE.
NOW, IF THEY WERE IN THE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, THEN WE HAD
BE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT IT --
WE'D BE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT T
BUT BECAUSE WE WERE CLEVER
ENOUGH TO PUT THEM IN THE TAX
CODE, NO, THEY'RE OFF-LIMITS.
NO, THIS IS A SOPHISTICATED WAY
OF SAYING, THE PROGRAMS FOR THE
WEALTHY AND WELL-CONNECTED IN
AMERICA ARE OFF LIMITS, BUT THE
PROGRAMS FOR WORKING FAMILIES,
THOSE ARE THE ONES WE ARE GOING
TO CUT.
IT'S THOSE PROGRAMS FOR THE
HUNGRY, IT'S THOSE PROGRAMS FOR
THE UNEMPLOYED, IT'S THAT HEALTH
CARE PROGRAM FOR OUR SENIORS,
IT'S THE INVESTMENT IN
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL BUILD
AMERICA.
THOSE ARE THE ONES WE WILL CUT.
MY COLLEAGUES AND OUR CITIZENS
OF THE UNITED STATES, WE MUST
HAVE A NATIONAL DEBATE, A DEBATE
THAT DOESN'T EMPLOY THIS TYPE OF
SMOKE AND MIRRORS TO TRY AND
PROTECT THE PROGRAMS WRITTEN FOR
THE WEALTHY AND WELL-CONNECTED
WHILE WAY TACKING THE PROGRAMS
FOR WORKING FAMILIES -- WHILE
ATTACK THE PROGRAMS FOR WORKING
FAMILIES.
THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE.
AND I AND OTHERS WILL RISE UP ON
THIS FLOOR AND POINT IT OUT TIME
AND TIME AGAIN THAT USING THAT
SIMPLE RUSE BY SAYING ONLY THE
APPROPRIATIONS BILLS ON THE
TABLE BUT NOT THE TAX BILL, THAT
IS UNACCEPTABLE.
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT IT
MUST NOT BE THAT WE MAKE OUR
KIDS' EDUCATION MORE EXPENSIVE
BY DIMINISHING PELL GRANTS THAT
WE MAKE OUR PARENTS' HEALTH CARE
MORE EXPENSIVE BY OBLITERATING
MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT, THAT WE
IMPOVERISH THE FUTURE OF THIS
NATION BY NOT INVESTING IN OUR
INFRASTRUCTURE WHILE CONTINUING
TO DEFEND THE PROGRAMS THAT WERE
DEVELOPED FOR THE BEST OFF, THE
WEALTHY AND WE WILL-CONNECTED
OVER THE -- THE WELL-CONNECTED
OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS AND SAY
THOSE ARE OFF THE TABLE.
THEY MUST BE ON THE TABLE.
WE MUST FIGHT FOR AN AMERICA
AMERICANS.
THAT WORKS FOR WORKING
THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
THE
SENATOR FROM MAINE.
THANK YOU, MADAM
PRESIDENT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT I BE PERMITTED TO