Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
SPENDING.
AS BEHIND THE SCENES
NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUE ON THOSE
TWO COMPETING PROPOSALS.
ON C-SPAN2.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
SENATE PROCEED TO A PERIOD OF
MONK BUSINESS UNTIL 3:30 P.M.
WITH SENATORS PERMITTED TO SPEAK
THEREIN FOR UP TO TEN MINUTES
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THESENATE PROCEED TO A PERIOD OF
NK BUSINESS UNTIL 3:30 P.M.
QUORUM CALL:
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR MARYLAND.
DISPENSED WITH.
ORDERED.
I UNDERSTAND WE'RE
IN MORNING BUSINESS.
IS THAT CORRECT?
CORRECT.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
TAKE THIS TIME TO TALK ABOUT THE
BUDGET DEFICIT AND WHAT WE NEED
TO DO IN ORDER TO BRING OUR
BUDGET INTO BALANCE, TO HAVE A
CREDIBLE PLAN TO DEAL WITH OUR
FUTURE GROWTH IN THIS NATION.
I START OFF BY SAYING, THE
BUDGET DEFICIT IS AN EXTREMELY
SERIOUS ISSUE FOR THIS NATION.
WE DO NOT HAVE A SUSTAINABLE
BUDGET.
WE CANNOT SUSTAIN A BUDGET THAT
CREATES DEBT AT 10% OF OUR GROSS
DOMESTIC PRODUCT, AND A GROSS
DEBT THAT EQUALS 100% OF OUR
G.D.P.
WE NEED TO BRING DOWN OUR
DEFICIT IN ORDER TO HAVE THE
TYPE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH SO THAT
OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN
WILL BE ABLE TO ENJOY A BETTER
ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCE THAN THIS
GENERATION.
BUT I THINK, FIRST, BEFORE WE
TALK ABOUT WHERE WE NEED TO GO,
WE'VE TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT
AND I'M NOT GOING TO HARP ON
THIS BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
-- THAT THE PEOPLE OF MARYLAND
AND THE NATION KNOW HOW WE GOT
TO THESE LARGE DEFICITS SO WE
PAST.
DURING PRESIDENT CLINTON'S
ADMINISTRATION, WE BALANCED THE
BUDGET.
AND I MIGHT SAY WE DID THAT --
THE DEMOCRATS DID IT WITHOUT A
SINGLE VOTE FROM THE
WE WERE ON COURSE TO RETIRE ALL
OF OUR DEBT, AND THAT WAS JUST
10 YEARS AGO.
THEN, UNDER PRESIDENT BUSH, WE
CUT TAXES TWICE WITHOUT PAYING
FOR THEM.
WE WANT TO WAR IN -- WE WENT TO
WAR IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN AND
DIDN'T PAY FOR IT.
TO DATE, THE WAR IN IRAQ HAS GOT
$770 BILLION.
THAT'S MONEY THAT WE HAD TO
BORROW IN ORDER TO FIGHT THAT
WAR IN IRAQ.
WE'VE CHOSEN, UNDER THE PREVIOUS
ADMINISTRATION, THAT IT WAS MORE
IMPORTANT TO CUT TAXES THAN IT
WAS TO BALANCE THE BUDGET.
AND THAT WAS A MISTAKE.
PRESIDENT OBAMA INHERITED A HUGE
DEFICIT, AND AN ECONOMY THAT WAS
HEMORRHAGING 700,000 JOBS A
MONTH.
WE WILL, IT IS TIME NOW TO MOVE
FORWARD.
WE HAVE TURNED OUR ECONOMY
IT IS GROWING.
WE NEED TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT
DOES NOT JEOPARDIZE OUR ECONOMIC
RECOVERY.
BUT IT'S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
THAT WE START TO MOVE OUR BUDGET
BACK INTO BALANCE.
AND THAT WE TAKE AGGRESSIVE
STEPS TO DO IT.
TODAY IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE WE
HEARD FROM ERSKINE BOWLES AND
FROM SENATOR SIMPSON FROM THE
DEBT COMMISSION, AND I THINK WE
WERE ALL IMPRESSED THAT IF WE'RE
GOING TO GET A CREDIBLE PLAN,
WHICH IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
FOR OUR NATION TO BALANCE THE
BUDGET, THAT WE NEED TO FOLLOW
THE EXAMPLE OF THE DEBT
IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE -- IT
DOESN'T MEAN TWOAF AGREE WITH
EVERYTHING THE DEBT COMMISSION
BUT THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZES
THAT WE COULDN'T BALANCE THE
BUDGET BY CUTTING DOMESTIC
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING ALONE.
THAT WE NEED A GAME FLAN BRINGS
ALL THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE
BUDGET TOGETHER: DISCRETIONARY
DOMESTIC SPENDING, MILITARY
SPENDING, WE NEED TO DEAL WITH
ENTITLEMENTS, AND WE NEED TO
DEAL WITH REVENUES.
AND WE'RE ONLY GOING TO GHET
DONE IF DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS WORK TOGETHER FOR A
THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN
ORDER TO BRING BACK OUR ECONOMY.
NOW, THE ONLY SPECIFIC PROPOSAL
THAT WE'VE HAD COME OVER FROM
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO
DATE, H.R. 1, THEIR BUDGET, I
BELIEVE DOES NOT FOLLOW THE
EXAMPLE OF THE DEBT COMMISSION.
I BELIEVE THAT IT IS EXTREMELY
HARMFUL TO THE PROCESS OF TRYING
TO WORK OUT A PLAN WHEN WE HAVE
A CREDIBLE EFFORT TO BALANCE THE
BUDGET WITH SHARED SACRIFICE.
BECAUSE THE HOUSE-PASSED BUDGET,
THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET IN THE
HOUSE, GETS ALL OF ITS SAVINGS
FROM 12% OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET,
FROM DISCRETIONARY DISOM STICK
SPENDING, AND IT JEOPARDIZING
OUR RECOVERY.
MARK ZANDI, THE ECONOMIST FROM
MOODY'S, STAYED WOULD LOSE
700,000 JOBS IF THE HOUSE-PASSED
REPUBLICAN BUDGET WERE ENACTED
INTO LAW.
LET ME GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES AS
TO HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THE
PEOPLE OF MARYLAND IF THE HOUSE
BUDGET BECAME LAW.
FIRST, LET ME TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT SOME OF THE BUDGET CUTS
ITSELF.
THAT TEN DAYS AGO I WAS AT A
HEALTH CENTER IN PRINCE GEORGES
COUNTY, MARYLAND, THEY'RE
EXPANDING IT TO INCLUDE PRENATAL
CARE.
THE REASON, QUITE FRANKLY, IS
THAT THE INFANT MORTALITY RATE
IN MARYLAND IS TOO HIGH.
WE RANK 29th IN THE NATION.
THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE.
COMMUNITY, THE INFANT MORTALITY
RATE IS 260% OF THAT OF THE
WHITE COMMUNITY.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE TOO
MANY LOW BIRTHWEIGHT BABIES.
SOME DIE AND BECOME PART OF THE
INFANT MORTALITY STATISTICS.
OTHERS SURVIVE AND HAVE
COMPLICATIONS THROUGHOUT THEIR
LIFE.
IT'S IN OUR INTEREST FROM EVERY
PERSPECTIVE TO BRING DOWN THAT
INFANT MORTALITY RATE AND TO
PROVIDE PRENATAL CARE FOR WOMEN
SO THAT WE HAVE HEALTHIER
TO THAT.
WE WILL, WE'RE DOING SOMETHING
ABOUT THAT IN MARYLAND.
USING MONEYS THAT WERE PART OF
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET WOULD
ELIMINATE THAT FUNDING.
THAT COMMUNITY WOULD NOT BE ABLE
TO EXPAND WITH PRENATAL CARE, TO
DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE HEALTH OF
OUR CITIZENS.
2,900 COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS
WOULD LOSE THEIR JOBS IN
MARYLAND -- 2,9 RADIO COMMUNITY
HEALTH WORKERS WOULD LOSE THEIR
JOBS IN MARYLAND IF THE
HOUSE-PASSED BUDGET, H.R. 1,
BECAME LAW.
I A TAKEN THE FLOOR ON SEVERAL
OCCASIONS A LITTLE BIT EARLIER
TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY AND THE FEDERAL
PARTNERSHIP.
WE'VE HAD A FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP
IN CLEANING UP THE BAY.
IT IS THE LARGEST HE IS WARY IN
SIGNIFICANCE.
AND IT'S IN DANGER BECAUSE TOO
MANY POLLUTANTS ARE ENTERING THE
BAY AS A RESULT OF POPULATION
PRACTICES.
WELL, WE HAVE A GAME PLAN TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
BUT THE BUDGET THAT PASSED THE
HOUSE WOULD CUT THE CHESAPEAKE
BAY PROGRAM DRAMATIC $25
MILLION, MAKING TEXT EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD
ON OUR REMEDIAL EFFORTS.
TO MAKE IT EVEN WORSE, THERE IS
AN ENVIRONMENTAL RIDER THAT WAS
PUT ON H.R. 1 THAT SAYS THAT
NONE OF THE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE
UNDER THIS ACT MAY BE USED TO
IMPLEMENT THE BAY RESTORATION
PLAN NOW UNDERWAY.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN,
IT MEANS THAT EACH ONE OF THE
STATES THAT ARE IN THE WATERSHED
OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY, THE STATE
OF VIRGINIA, THE STATE OF
DEACIALTION THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, WEST
VIRGINIA, AND THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, ALL RELY ON IMPROVING
THE WEST WATER TREATMENT IF
FACILITIES PLANTS UNDER THE
STATE RESOLVING FUND.
IF THAT RIDER BECAME LARKS THE
STATES COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN
THAT PROGRAM.
IT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
IMPLEMENT ONE OF THE MAJOR
FEATURES OF THEIR PLAN IN ORDER
TO REDUCE THE POLLUTANTS GOING
INTO THE BAY TO MAKE IT A
CLEANER BODY WAWMPLET I COULD
TALK ABOUT THE WATERSHED GRANTS
THAT GO TO SCHOOLS, GO TO CIVIC
ASSOCIATIONS ELIMINATED UNDER
THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET, OR I
COULD TALK ABOUT HOW THE STATE
GETS MONEY TO OPERATE ITS WATER
FUNDS ELIMINATED UNDER THE
HOUSE-PASSED BUDGET.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY SEES THEIR BUDGET REDUCED
BY OVER 30%, PLUS ADDITIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL RIDE THEIRS MAKE
IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.
IN MARYLAND, WE WOULD LOSE $150
MILLION TOWARDS THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT'S COMMITMENT TO THE
WASHINGTON METRO SYSTEM.
THIS AFFECTS THE ENTIRE AREA,
INCLUDING VIRGINIA AND THE
DISTRICT.
THIS IS THE NATION LES METRO
SYSTEM, WITH WHERE THE FEDERAL
WORKFORCE GETS TO WORK.
WE ENTERED INTO A 10-YEAR
COMMITMENT THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WOULD BE A PARTNER,
$150 MILLION TOWARDS THOSE
COSTS.
THE HOUSE BUDGET ELIMINATES
THOSE TRANSIT FUNDS.
HEAD START -- THE REPUBLICAN
HOUSE BUDGET WOULD CUT HEAD
START BY $1.1 BILLION, 157,000
CHILDREN WOULD BE AFFECTED,
2,300 IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
2,300 IN.
THESE ARE CHILDREN THAT ARE
GETTING A BETTER START IN LIFE
BECAUSE OF THIS PROGRAM.
AND THE BUDGET IN THE -- PASSED
BY THE HOUSE, H.R. 1, WOULD
ELIMINATE THOSE SERVICES FOR SO
MANY OF OUR CHILDREN.
PELL GRANTS TO ALLOW FAMILIES TO
BE ABLE TO AFFORD COLLEGE
EDUCATION REDUCED BY $5.7
BILLION, 9.4 MILLION STUDENTS.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE PEOPLE
OF MARYLAND?
IT MEANS THOSE WHO HAVE PELL
GRANTS TODAY COULD SEE THEIR
GRANTS GO DOWN BY AS MUCH AS
I CAN TELL YOU, MR. PRESIDENT,
THERE ARE MANY FAMILIES IN
THAT EXTRA $650.
AND WITHOUT A COLLEGE EDUCATION
TODAY, IT'S DIFFICULT TO BE ABLE
TO BE AS COMPETITIVE AS YOU NEED
TO BE IN ORDER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF OUR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES.
THE W.I.C. PROGRAM THAT HELPS
WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN CUT
BY 10% UNDER THE HOUSE-PASSED
N.I.H. FUNDING DOWN $1 BILLION.
RESEARCH NOT JUST AT N.I.H.
WHICH IS LOCATED IN MY STATE OF
MARYLAND, BUT ALSO AT JOHNS
HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, THE
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL
CENTER WOULD BE DISRUPTED IF THE
REPUBLICAN HOUSE-PASSED BUDGET
H.R. 1 WERE TO BECOME LAW.
OUR CHALLENGE, AS PRESIDENT
OBAMA SO WELL STATE IN THE STATE
OF THE UNION ADDRESS, IS WE HAVE
TO OUTEDUCATE, OUTINNOVATE AND
OUTBUILD IF OUR COMPETITORS OF
AMERICA ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO
COMPETE IN THE 21st CENTURY
GLOBALLY THAT'S OUR CHALLENGE.
H.R. 1, THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET,
DOES NOT ALLOW US TO DO THAT.
THERE'S A BETTER WAY OF DOING
AND AS THE PRESIDENT SAID, WE
NEED TO DO IT IN A FISCALLY
RESPONSIBLE WAY.
HOW DO YOU DO IT?
WE NEED A CREDIBLE PLAN TO
BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET, A
CREDIBLE PLAN THAT WILL BRING IN
MORE DEFICIT REDUCTION THAN H.R.
1, THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET,
BECAUSE YOU NEED TO ALLOW
AMERICA TO GROW BUT YET MOVE
TOWARDS A BALANCED BUDGET.
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DO THAT IS
TO INCLUDE, AS I SAID EARLIER,
ALL SECTORS, NOT JUST
DISCRETIONARY DOMESTIC SPENDING.
YOU NEED TO INCLUDE MILITARY
YOU NEED TO DEAL WITH
ENTITLEMENTS AND YOU NEED TO
DEAL WITH REVENUES.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S BUDGET STARTS
US DOWN THAT PATH BY FREEZING
DISCRETIONARY DOMESTIC SPENDING
OVER FIVE YEARS.
FREEZING DISCRETIONARY DOMESTIC
SPENDING OVER FIVE YEARS.
NOW, WE'VE ALREADY GONE FURTHER
THAN THAT IN THE CONTINUING
RESOLUTION THAT WE PASSED.
WE'RE ALL NOW GOING TO GO BACK
TO 2010 NUMBERS, EVEN A LITTLE
BIT BELOW THAT.
WE'VE ALREADY PUT ON THE TABLE
DRAMATIC REDUCTIONS IN THE
GROWTH RATES OF DISCRETIONARY
DOMESTIC SPENDING.
BUT WE NEED TO INCLUDE DEFENSE.
IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN NEED TO
COME TO AN END, AND THOSE
SAVINGS WILL BE DRAMATIC.
AMERICA CANNOT CONTINUE TO HAVE
A GROWTH ECONOMY WHERE WE SPEND
SO MUCH MORE THAN ANY OTHER
NATION ON OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE.
WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF
THIS NATION BUT WE CAN'T TAKE
THE BURDENS OF THE WORLD.
THERE HAS TO BE ADEQUATE BURDEN
SHARING AMONG OUR ALLIES,
TAXPAYER.
IN ENTITLEMENT SPENDING, YES, WE
NEED TO BRING DOWN COSTS.
I THINK WE TAOBGD A MAY -- TOOK
A MAJOR STEP TOWARD DOING THIS
IN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE I AGREE
WITH SOME OF MY REPUBLICAN
FRIENDS WHO ARE CITING KRAO EUT
KRAO EUT -- WHO ARE CRITICIZING
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
WE'RE GOING TO GET MORE SAVINGS
BUDGET OFFICE HAS ESTIMATED.
I AM CONVINCED THAT WHEN YOU
DEAL WITH PEOPLE IN PREVENTIVE
HEALTH CARE, USE BETTER
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WHERE YOU
MANAGE PEOPLE'S DISEASES, WHERE
YOU DEAL WITH READMISSIONS SO
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY NEED
TO DO TO STAY HEALTHY, WHEN YOU
PUT THAT TOGETHER, WHEN YOU
EXPAND OUR COMMUNITY HEALTH
CENTERS, WHAT'S HAPPENED AT THE
BABY CENTER ON PRENATAL CARE,
WHEN YOU DO THAT IT'S GOING TO
BRING DOWN THE GROWTH OF HEALTH
CARE COSTS.
AMERICA SPENDS WELL MORE THAN
ANY OTHER NATION IN ANY WAY YOU
WANT TO CALCULATE IT ON HEALTH
WE NEED TO BRING DOWN THAT
GROWTH RATE.
WE DON'T HAVE THE HEALTH CARE
RESULTS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT TYPE
OF A COMMITMENT.
WE CAN BRING DOWN THE COST OF
AND WHEN WE DO THAT, BY
IMPLEMENTING THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT AND MAKING SURE WE GET THOSE
SAVINGS, WE WILL BRING DOWN THE
MEDICARE COSTS.
WE WILL BRING DOWN THE MEDICAID
COSTS WHICH WILL SAVE TAXPAYERS
SPENDING.
WE CAN GET THOSE SAVINGS.
AND, BY THE WAY, WE'RE GOING TO
SAVE MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES IN
THIS COUNTRY BY ALSO REDUCING
THEIR COSTS IN HEALTH CARE.
THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO,
MAKING OUR ECONOMY STRONGER.
SO WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT
ENTITLEMENT SPENDING.
AND THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THAT
WE NEED TO LOOK AT.
THE FARM SUBSIDY PROGRAMS NEED
TO BE REVIEWED, AND THE DEBT
COMMISSION CAME IN WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THAT REGARD
THAT I THINK ARE WORTHY OF OUR
AND THEN THERE'S REVENUES.
YES, I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A
LOOK AT REVENUES.
OUR CURRENT INCOME TAX STRUCTURE
CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED.
AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT
FREQUENTLY, WE HEMORRHAGE AS
WE RAISE.
WHAT DO I MEAN BY THAT?
IF YOU ELIMINATED ALL THE
SPECIAL PROVISIONS, YOU COULD
CUT THE TAX RATES IN HALF.
IN HALF.
AND SINCE WE HAD TAX REFORM IN
1986, WE'VE ADDED SO MANY NEW
LOOPHOLES AND PROVISIONS AND
SPECIAL INTEREST PROVISIONS IN
THE TAX CODE.
IN 1986 WE ATTEMPTED TO LOWER
THE RATES AND MAKE SURE
EVERYBODY PAID THEIR FAIR SHARE.
WELL, IT'S NOW 2011 AND WE'RE
OUT OF BALANCE, AND WE NEED TO
LOOK AT TAX REFORM.
I HAVE URGED US IN LOOKING AT
TAX REFORM THAT WE SHOULD LOOK
AT CONSUMPTION-BASED TAXES.
I KNOW THE CRITICISMS OF THE
CONSUMPTION-BASED TAXES.
LET ME JUST START BY SAYING IF
WE HAD CONSUMPTION-BASED TAXES
TO DEAL WITH SOME OF OUR INCOME
TAX REVENUES, WE WOULD BE MORE
COMPETITIVE INTERNATIONALLY.
IF YOU'RE AN EXPORT COMPANY AND
YOU'RE CHOOSING WHETHER TO
LOCATE HERE IN AMERICA OR TO
LOCATE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY, YOU
PAY INCOME TAXES HERE THAT CAN'T
BE TAKEN OFF THE PRICE OF YOUR
PRODUCT WHEN YOU PUT IT IN THE
INTERNATIONAL MARKETPLACE.
IF YOU LOCATE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY
THAT USE CONSUMPTION TAXES AT A
HIGHER LEVEL THAN WE DO -- AND
WE DON'T USE IT AT ALL, BUT
HIGHER LEVELS THAN OUR INCOME
TAXES, THAT COUNTRY WILL ALLOW
THOSE EXPORTERS TO TAKE THE TAX
OFF WHEN THEY PUT THEIR PRODUCT
MARKETPLACE.
AND THAT'S ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION.
PUTTING AMERICAN PRODUCERS AT A
WE NEED TO SAVE MORE AS A
WE'VE HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN
THE POINT MADE THAT AMERICA
DURING THE HEIGHT OF OUR
ECONOMIC PROGRESS HAD ONE OF THE
WORLD.
WE NEED TO SAVE MORE AS A
OUR TAX CODE SHOULD ENCOURAGE
SAVINGS MUCH MORE THAN IT DOES
TODAY.
I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR, I THINK
I AM TOTALLY COMMITTED THAT IN
TAX REFORM, WE MAKE OUR TAX CODE
MORE PROGRESSIVE.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S PROGRESSIVE
PROGRESSIVE MEANS THAT IT IS
BASED, AT LEAST IN PART, TO THE
ABILITY TO PAY.
SO WEALTHIER PEOPLE PAY A HIGHER
PERCENTAGE OF THE TAX THAN
LOWER-INCOME PEOPLE.
TODAY UNDER OUR INCOME TAX, MANY
TAXES.
WELL, WE CAN DESIGN A
CONSUMPTION TAX SO THEY WON'T
HAVE TO PAY THE CONSUMPTION TAX,
SO THERE IS NO NEW TAX BURDEN.
IN FACT, THERE ARE PROPOSALS OUT
THERE THAT COULD TAKE MORE
PEOPLE OFF THE TAX ROLLS.
AND, BY THE WAY, THIS IS A
ZERO-SUM GAME ON REVENUE.
LET'S DECIDE HOW MUCH REVENUE WE
NEED AND LET'S RAISE IT IN THE
MOST COST-EFFICIENT WAY THAT
WILL ALLOW AMERICA TO GROW.
THAT'S THE TYPE OF REFORMS I
HOPE WE WILL BE ABLE TO GET
INTO.
IF WE DO, IT WILL MEAN NOT ONLY
BRINGING OUR BUDGET INTO BALANCE
BY A CREDIBLE PLAN THAT DEALS
WITH DISCRETIONARY DOMESTIC
SPENDING AND MILITARY SPENDING,
ENTITLEMENT SPENDING AND
REVENUES, BUT DOES IT IN A WAY
THAT ALLOWS AMERICA TO GROW.
BY INVESTING IN OUR FUTURE IN
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE,
IN TRANSIT AND ALL THOSE AREAS
THAT WE NEED SO THAT WE CAN MEET
THE CHALLENGES OF THE FUTURE,
BUT WE DO IT IN A WAY THAT IS
FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.
HOW DO WE GET THIS DONE?
BY COMING TOGETHER, LISTENING TO
EACH OTHER.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE HERE HAS A
MONOPLY ON WHAT IS RIGHT.
FOR THE SAKE OF OUR NATION,
LET'S LISTEN TO EACH OTHER AND
TRY TO GET THIS DONE IN A WAY
THAT WE HAVE A CREDIBLE PLAN.
IT'S GOT TO BE A CREDIBLE PLAN.
THESE ARE NOT DEMOCRATIC
PROBLEMS OR REPUBLICAN PROBLEMS
OR INDEPENDENT PROBLEMS.
THESE ARE AMERICAN ISSUES, AND
WE'VE GOT TO PUT OUR NATION
SO I HOPE EACH ONE OF US WILL
STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT AND
LISTEN TO DEBATE AND USE THE
DEBT COMMISSION AS A MODEL OF
AGAIN, I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE
DIFFERENT VIEWS ON IT, BUT I
HOPE AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT
WE CAN ACHIEVE AT LEAST THE
DEFICIT REDUCTION OF THE
I THINK WE CAN DO THAT.
I KNOW THAT OUR NATION AND THE
PEOPLE OF MARYLAND AND THE
COUNTRY WANT US TO DO THIS.
AND WORKING TOGETHER, I THINK WE
CAN ACCOMPLISH THOSE GOALS.
AND WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR AND
SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
QUORUM CALL:
QUORUM CALL:
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
IS THE SENATE IN A
QUORUM CALL?
IT IS.
I ASK THAT THE
QUORUM CALL BE SUSPENDED.
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I HAVE BEEN SITTING IN MY OFFICE
LISTENING TO NEWS REPORTS ABOUT
THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT
ARGUING ABOUT THE BUDGET AND THE
DEBATE ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO
IT'S INTERESTING TO THINK BACK
OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS
BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO PUT THESE
THINGS TOGETHER AFTER TWO YEARS
OF THE LARGEST EXPANSION OF
GOVERNMENT, THE BIGGEST INCREASE
IN DEBT IN OUR HISTORY, NOW
SUDDENLY WE ARE DEBATING WHAT
NEEDS TO BE CUT.
I THINK OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF
YEARS AS THE PRESIDENT PROPOSED
A MASSIVE SPENDING PLAN THAT WE
CALL THE STIMULUS, REPUBLICANS
WERE SAYING NO, THAT'S NOT THE
WAY TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY, BUT
THE PRESIDENT INSISTED IT WOULD
KEEP UNEMPLOYMENT BELOW 8% AND
GET OUR ECONOMY GOING AGAIN.
REPUBLICANS SAID NO.
WE WERE ACCUSED OF BEING THE
PARTY OF NO, BUT AS IT TURNS
OUT, WE WERE -- WE WERE RIGHT.
AND THEN IT WASN'T TOO LONG
UNTIL THE PRESIDENT INSISTED
THAT WE NEEDED ESSENTIALLY A
NATIONAL TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH
CARE SYSTEM, AND THIS IS WHAT HE
PROMISED WOULD LOWER THE COST OF
HEALTH INSURANCE.
REPUBLICANS SAID NO, THAT WHAT
WE NEED IS MORE FREEDOM FOR
PATIENTS AND PHYSICIANS TO WORK
TOGETHER AND MORE TRANSPARENCY,
MORE COMPETITIVENESS IN THE
THE PRESIDENT SAID NO, THAT HIS
WAY OF NATIONALIZING HEALTH CARE
WAS BETTER.
REPUBLICANS WERE AGAIN CALLED
THE PARTY OF NO FOR SAYING THAT
WAS NOT THE WAY TO GO, BUT AS IT
TURNS OUT, WE WERE RIGHT.
INSURANCE PREMIUMS ARE -- ARE
HEADED STRAIGHT UP.
EVEN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" TODAY
TALKED ABOUT SKYROCKETING
INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND LESS
HEALTH CARE.
IT WASN'T LONG AFTER THAT UNTIL
THE PRESIDENT AND OUR DEMOCRAT
NATIONAL -- MORE NATIONAL
CONTROL OF OUR WHOLE BANKING
SYSTEM WITH THE FINANCIAL
REFORM.
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO LOOSEN UP
CREDIT AND HELP OUR ECONOMY GET
GOING AGAIN.
BUT I'VE TALKED TO TOO MANY
THAT THAT WOULD WORK.
OF COURSE, REPUBLICANS SAID NO,
THAT WASN'T THE DIRECTION WE
NEEDED TO GO.
WE WERE CALLED THE PARTY OF NO.
BUT AS IT TURNS OUT, WE WERE
RIGHT.
WE MIGHT SAY WE WERE THE PARTY
OF NO, BUT YOU SPELL IT K-N-O-W.
WE KNEW THIS APPROACH OF
CENTRALIZATION, POWER, OF
GOVERNMENT CONTROL WAS NOT GOING
TO STIMULATE OUR ECONOMY, IT
WASN'T GOING TO IMPROVE OUR
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, IT WASN'T
GOING TO IMPROVE OUR BANKING
SYSTEM.
IT WAS THE TIME TO SAY NO.
LAST NOVEMBER, THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE DECIDED IT WAS TIME TO
SAY NO.
THEY BEGAN TO PUT A STOP TO
WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON UP HERE,
AND WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THE
HOUSE AND THE ELECTIONS OVER
HERE, BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, I
MEAN, THEY WERE PRETTY CLEAR,
THEY INSTINCTIVELY KNEW THAT WE
COULDN'T CONTINUE TO SPEND MORE
THAN WE WERE BRINGING IN.
THEY KNEW THAT WHEN YOU'RE
BORROWING 40 CENTS ON EVERY
DOLLAR YOU SPEND, THAT SOONER OR
LATER THE COUNTRY IS GOING TO BE
BANKRUPT, BUT IT'S AMAZING SINCE
THAT ELECTION, EVEN WITH THE
CHANGES, THAT OUR COLLEAGUES
HERE ON THE OTHER SIDE, EVEN THE
OTHER DAY, KILLED A PROPOSAL TO
BALANCE THE BUDGET, A RESOLUTION
THAT CALLED FOR THE BALANCING OF
THE BUDGET.
I THINK MOST AMERICANS KNOW
IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO BALANCE
YOUR CHECKBOOK OR BALANCE YOUR
BUDGET, SOONER OR LATER, YOU'RE
GOING TO BE BANKRUPT, AND I
THINK THAT'S WHAT A LOT OF
AMERICANS ARE AFRAID OF RIGHT
NOW.
AND I THINK WE HAVE A DIFFERENT
SITUATION GOING ON WITH OUR
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE
FROM -- FROM WISCONSIN TO HERE
IN WASHINGTON, AS WE LOOK AT THE
BUDGET PROBLEMS AND THE DEBATE
ON HOW TO CUT SPENDING AT THE
WE HAVE GOT A PARTY OF NO SHOW.
THEY'RE NOT SHOWING UP FOR THE
IN WISCONSIN, THE DEMOCRATS
HEADED ACROSS THE STATE LINE.
IN THE BUDGET DEBATE, THE
PRESIDENT WHO HAD PLEDGED TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT OUR -- OUR
SPENDING AND OUR DEFICITS AND GO
THROUGH THE BUDGET LINE BY LINE
DIDN'T EVEN PRODUCE A BUDGET,
AND THE BUDGET HE PROPOSED THIS
YEAR AND PROMISED THAT IT WOULD
KEEP US LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS,
I THINK EVEN THE MOST LIBERAL
COMMENTATOR SAID THIS EXPANDS
OUR DEBT NATIONALLY PROBABLY
MORE THAN $10 TRILLION OVER THE
NEXT TEN YEARS.
WE'RE OVER $14 TRILLION IN DEBT.
WE HIT OUR DEBT CEILING WITHIN
THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO, AND WE'RE
DEBATING HOW MUCH TO CUT.
I JUST WANTED TO TALK AILING BIT
ABOUT THIS DE -- TALK A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT THIS DEBATE.
BECAUSE IT SHOWS WITH EVEN THE
STUNNING ELECTION WE HAD IN
NOVEMBER, VERY QUICKLY CONGRESS
IS BACK TO BUSINESS AS USUAL.
THE DEFICIT WE'RE LOOKING AT
THIS YEAR IN AMERICA -- THIS IS
JUST ONE YEAR -- IS OVER
THAT'S GOING TO BE ON TOP OF THE
EXPERIENCING.
AND THE PROJECTIONS ARE THAT WE
WILL INCREASE OUR DEBT OVER THE
NEXT TEN YEARS ANOTHER TRILLION
DOLLARS EVERY YEAR.
FRIENDS, LAST MONTH, IN
FEBRUARY, WHICH WAS A SHORT
MONTH, OVER $220 BILLION IN DEBT
IN THAT ONE MONTH.
THAT'S A LARGER DEFICIT THAN
WE'VE EXPERIENCED IN MOST YEARS
THAT OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN
AROUND.
IT'S CRAZY.
$220 BILLION IN ONE MONTH.
WE'RE FACING $1.5 TRILLION THIS
YEAR.
AND IT'S AMAZING HOW THIS PLACE
CAN LOWER OUR EXPECTATIONS.
BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT THE DEBATE
IS ABOUT RIGHT NOW?
THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE HAS
PROPOSED $61 BILLION IN CUTS
AGAINST THE $1.5 TRILLION.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TOLD US, THIS
IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE,
DRACONIAN CUTS.
THE PRESIDENT PROPOSED AROUND
$6 BILLION.
I THINK SENATOR -- THE DEMOCRAT
LEADER TODAY IS COMING OUT WITH
ONE THAT'S ABOUT $4.5 BILLION,
WHICH SOME SAY IS TOO MUCH OF A
NOW, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT
DOUBLING THIS $14 TRILLION
DEFICIT OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS,
OR CLOSE TO DOUBLING IT, THE
HARD DECISIONS THAT WE HAVE TO
MAKE ABOUT HOW DO WE DEAL WITH
SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE,
THE BIG DECISIONS ABOUT HOW DO
WE ECONOMIZE, EVEN IN AREAS LIKE
OUR DEFENSES, HOW DO WE POSSIBLY
DEAL WITH THIS DEBT?
WE HAVE A CONGRESS NOW THAT
INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THE ISSUE
OF $1.5 TRILLION IS DEBATING
BETWEEN $61 BILLION AND
THESE ARE FRACTIONAL.
YOU CANNOT EVEN SEE THE LINE
HERE OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED
BY OUR DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES.
I'M AFRAID THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA
AND THE DEMOCRATS LIKE WE SEE IN
WISCONSIN ARE NOT SHOWING UP FOR
THIS DEBATE.
INSTEAD OF PROPOSING REALISTIC
WAYS TO TIGHTEN OUR BELTS AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL, TO LOOK AT HOW WE
CAN BALANCE OUR CHECKBOOK, AS SO
MANY AMERICANS HAVE TO DO EVERY
MONTH IN THEIR HOMES, THE
PRESIDENT HAS DECIDED TO SIT ON
THE SIDELINES AND CRITICIZE
THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE TRIMMED
OR CUT OR CHANGED.
I MEAN, IT'S AMAZING THAT THE
DEMOCRAT LEADER HAS CALLED
REPUBLICANS MEAN-SPIRITED
BECAUSE THEY'RE PROPOSING TO CUT
FUNDING FOR A COWBOY POETRY
FESTIVAL.
A COWBOY POETRY FESTIVAL.
NOW, I LOVE POETRY AND COWBOYS
AS MUCH AS ANYONE ELSE, BUT
WE'RE LOOKING AT BANKRUPTING OUR
NATION, DESTROYING THE FUTURE
THAT WAS GIVEN TO US BY OUR
PREDECESSORS.
AND WE CAN'T EVEN GET CLOSE TO A
REALISTIC DEBATE ON HOW WE CAN
STOP THIS RAMPAGE TOWARDS
THIS IS NOT ENOUGH.
EVEN WHAT THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS
HAVE DONE IS NOT ENOUGH.
I REALIZE THAT POLITICS IS
SOMETIMES THE ART OF THE
POSSIBLE, BUT I'M HOPING THAT IT
CAN BECOME THE PROMOTION OF THE
PRINCIPLES THAT MAKE THIS
COUNTRY GREAT AND CAN SECURE OUR
FUTURE.
WE ALL HAVE TO DECIDE TODAY HOW
WE'RE GOING TO VOTE.
OBVIOUSLY THIS $6 BILLION IS NOT
A SERIOUS PROPOSAL BY OUR
DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES.
BUT I THINK THOSE OF US THAT
REALIZE THAT WE'RE UP AGAINST A
MOUNTAIN OF DEBT, HOW DO WE DEAL
WITH EVEN THE HIGHEST PROPOSAL
NOW THAT'S COMING THROUGH
CONGRESS?
MY POINT IS THIS -- THERE'S SOME
HARD DECISIONS THAT HAVE TO BE
MADE HERE IN WASHINGTON.
SOME VERY HARD DECISIONS.
THERE'S A NEW REALITY THAT WE
HAVE TO FACE AS A CONGRESS.
WE HAVE TO TELL THE TRUTH.
AMERICANS JUST WANT THE TRUTH.
THEY WANT FACT-BASED BUDGETING.
THEY WANT US TO -- TO DO THE
THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO TO
SAVE OUR COUNTRY.
OBVIOUSLY, NO ONE WANTS ANYTHING
THAT'S COMING TO THEM TO BE CUT,
BUT I'VE TALKED TO TOO MANY
AMERICANS THAT HAVE SAID KEEP
FIGHTING, DO WHAT HAS TO BE DONE
TO LEAVE THIS COUNTRY AS GOOD AS
WE FOUND IT.
I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE
THING FOR US TO CONSIDER HERE.
AND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS NOT
EVEN WITHIN THE REALM OF REALITY
OF WHAT HAS TO BE DONE TO LEAVE
AMERICA BETTER THAN WE FOUND IT.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT PARTISAN
THIS IS ABOUT THE SURVIVAL OF
AMERICA.
THIS IS REALLY ABOUT AVOIDING
BANKRUPTCY.
NOT JUST FOR OUR COUNTRY, BUT
THIS COUNTRY HAS BEEN THE
BASTION OF FREEDOM AND THE MODEL
FOR DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM FOR
OTHER COUNTRIES EVEN TODAY ARE
LOOKING AT US AND WANTING TO BE
FREE AS VIOLENCE ERUPTS AROUND
THE WORLD TO TRY TO OVERTHROW
AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES SO PEOPLE
CAN LIVE IN FREEDOM.
COUNTRIES STRIVE TO BE LIKE
AMERICA, AMERICA SEEMS TO BE
DETERMINED, AT LEAST AT THE
POLITICAL LEVEL, TO PUSH OUR WAY
TOWARDS A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY
THAT'S SO IN DEBT AND SO
DEPENDENT THAT WE NO LONGER CAN
DETERMINE OUR OWN DESTINY.
BECAUSE TODAY AMERICA IS
LITERALLY ON ITS KNEES TO CHINA
AND OTHER COUNTRIES FOR THE
CREDIT WE NEED TO RUN OUR
ECONOMY.
WE'RE ALSO ON OUR KNEES TO THE
MIDDLE EAST, WHICH IS VERY
UNSTABLE RIGHT NOW, FOR THE
ENERGY WE NEED TO RUN OUR
COUNTRY, TO EVEN TAKE OUR FOOD
TO MARKET, THE ESSENTIALS HERE
AT HOME.
BUT INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING THE
REAL ISSUES, KNOWING THAT THIS
BUDGET IS IN FRONT OF US OVER
THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, WHEN
WE KNEW WE JUST HAD THIS
TWO-WEEK FUNDING BILL TO GET US
THROUGH, INSTEAD OF DEBATING
WHAT WE'RE REALLY UP AGAINST,
WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH A PATENT
BILL.
NOW, I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING
TO IMPROVE OUR PATENT SYSTEM.
BUT, FOLKS, THE PARTY THAT'S
LEADING THE SENATE HERE HAS BEEN
A IN-SHOW -- HAS BEEN A NO-SHOW
ON THE ISSUE THAT IS REALLY
THREATENING OUR COUNTRY, AND
UNLESS THEY SHOW UP, IT IS VERY
DIFFICULT FOR REPUBLICANS WHO
RESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE,
THEY'RE NOT CONTROLLING THE
SENATE TO ACTUALLY TAKE THE
STEPS THAT ARE NEEDED TO MOVE
OUR COUNTRY BACK IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION.
SO MY INVITATION TODAY IS TO MY
DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES.
AFTER LIVING TO THEM CALL US THE
PARTY OF NO, I WILL SAY THAT WE
WERE RIGHT AND OUR HOPE IS THEY
WILL LISTEN TO WHAT WE'RE SAYING
HERE AND SHOW UP FOR THE DEBATE
ON OUR BUDGET.
AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO CHANGE
THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, TO DEVOLVE FUNCTIONS
BACK TO THE STATES AND BACK TO
INDIVIDUALS SO THAT THIS COUNTRY
CAN CONTINUE TO SURVIVE, THRIVE,
SUCCEED IN THE FUTURE.
THIS IS WITHIN OUR GRASP, IT IS
SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO.
THIS IS NOT A DOOMSDAY SCENARIO,
BECAUSE MANY OF THE SOLUTIONS
ARE NOT IN WHAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CAN DO BUT WHAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN LET GO
OF.
BECAUSE AS WE LOOK AT THE
PROBLEMS WE HAVE TODAY, IT'S NOT
A MATTER THAT FREEDOM HAS FAILED
FAILED.
THE PROBLEM IS WE HAVE FAILED TO
LET FREEDOM WORK.
WE HAVE TRIED TO TAKE CONTROL OF
EDUCATION, OF HEALTH CARE, OF
TRANSPORTATION, OF ENERGY, OF --
OF RETIREMENT PROGRAMS.
AND THE FACT IS WE HAVEN'T DONE
IT WELL AND NOW WE'RE SPENDING
SO MUCH THAT OUR COUNTRY IS
THREATENED WITH BANKRUPTCY.
THERE ARE GOOD SOLUTIONS IF
WE'RE WILLING TO LOOK AT LETTING
THINGS GO.
AND AS WE CONSIDER THIS MASSIVE
DEBT HILL THAT WE HAVE TO CLIMB,
WE NEED TO REALIZE THAT WE CAN
AND WE MUST BALANCE THE BUDGET.
THAT IS PROBABLY THE -- I WOULD
CONSIDER THE NUMBER-ONE GOAL OF
THE REPUBLICANS RIGHT NOW IS TO
PRODUCE A BUDGET THAT SHOWS
WITHIN FIVE YEARS THAT WE CAN
BALANCE THE BUDGET AND LEAVE
AMERICA BETTER OFF THAN BEFORE
WE STARTED.
AND I BELIEVE WITH REAL FREEDOM
SOLUTIONS WE CAN DO THAT.
BUT WE NEED TO GO BACK TO WHERE
WE STARTED.
THIS POLITICAL SYSTEM, THIS
WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT HAS
BROUGHT AMERICA TO THE BRINK OF
THE DEBT IN ONE YEAR, EVEN ONE
MONTH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT
EVEN ADDRESSING FOR MAYBE A FEW
DAYS AND WE CAN'T EVEN AGREE ON
THIS $61 BILLION.
I HOPE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WHO
WERE SO INSTRUMENTAL IN CHANGING
THINGS IN NOVEMBER, WILL RISE UP
AND LET WASHINGTON KNOW THAT
IT'S TIME TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT
REFORMING THE WAY WE SPEND MONEY
IN WASHINGTON.
WE'VE HAD REPORTS IN THE LAST
WEEK THAT SHOW OVER $100 BILLION
OF JUST OUTRIGHT WASTE THAT WE
COULD CUT IMMEDIATELY IF WE
WOULD JUST ADDRESS IT.
BUT WHEN ONE PARTY WON'T SHOW UP
FOR THE DEBATE, IT'S VERY
DIFFICULT TO DO.
LET'S MAKE THIS MORE THAN
PARTISAN POLITICS.
LET'S COOPERATE.
LET'S LOOK AT THE REAL PROBLEM,
AND LET'S ADDRESS IT.
AND I BELIEVE WE CAN SUCCEED.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.
I YIELD BACK, SUGGEST THE
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
OBJECTION.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.