Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
FOR WHOM THAT IS EITHER ALL OR
ALMOST ALL OF THEIR INCOME.
THAT'S IT.
THAT'S IT.
AND IN THIS DAY AND AGE, THAT'S
THE AVERAGE.
SO YOUR POINT IS THERE ARE
AVERAGE.
CERTAINLY PEOPLE BELOW THE
I ASK THE
SENATOR THAT BECAUSE IT REALLY
IS STRIKING TO ME THAT SOME
MEMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
AISLE WILL COME AND ARGUE THAT
PROGRAMS LIKE THIS SHOULD BE
SLATED FOR CUTS AND REDUCTIONS.
AND YET, FAIL TO VOTE FAVORABLY
TO RAISE SLIGHTLY THE INCOME TAX
ON FAMILIES MAKING OVER $1
MILLION A YEAR IN ANNUAL INCOME.
I, FRANKLY, SENATOR, DON'T
UNDERSTAND THAT.
I'M NOT SURE PEOPLE LISTENING TO
THIS UNDERSTAND IT.
COULD YOU ENLIGHTEN US?
HERE'S THE STORY.
I AGREE WITH YOU, AND I FIND IT
HARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE
ARE PEOPLE WHO GET UP HERE --
AND WE HEAR THE SPEECHES EVERY
DAY.
DEFICIT CRISIS.
THEY SAY WE HAVE A SERIOUS
IT IS UNFAIR TO LEAVE THAT
BURDEN TO OUR KIDS AND OUR
GRANDCHILDREN.
WE AGREE WITH THAT.
AND WE SAY, OKAY, LET'S ADDRESS
THE DEFICIT CRISIS, BUT LET'S DO
IT IN A WAY THAT IS NOT ON THE
BACKS OF THE SICK, THE ELDERLY,
THE CHILDREN, THE MOST
COUNTRY.
VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN THIS
SO WHAT THE SENATOR FROM
LOUISIANA IS POINTING OUT, THAT
IN THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS WHAT
WE HAVE SEEN IS THAT THE PEOPLE
ON TOP HAVE BEEN DOING VERY,
VERY WELL.
THE TOP 1% NOW EARNS ABOUT 23%
OF ALL INCOME, WHICH IS MORE
THAN THE BOTTOM 50%.
THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE FOR THE
VERY WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN THIS
COUNTRY IS ABOUT 16%, WHICH IS
THE LOWEST IN RECENT HISTORY.
AND WE HAVE GIVEN HUGE AMOUNTS
OF TAX BREAKS IN RECENT YEARS TO
THESE VERY SAME PEOPLE.
SO WHAT I THINK THE SENATOR FROM
LOUISIANA SAYING, AND I AGREE
WITH HER, IS IF WE ARE GOING TO
GO FORWARD WITH DEFICIT
REDUCTION, LET'S DO IT IN A WAY
THAT CALLS FOR SHARED SACRIFICE.
THE SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA KNOWS
THAT H.R. 1, THE REPUBLICAN
HOUSE-PASSED BILL, WOULD THROW
OVER 200,000 KIDS OFF OF HEAD
START.
MILLIONS OF STUDENTS WHO ARE
TRYING TO GET THROUGH COLLEGE
WOULD EITHER GET LOWER PELL
GRANTS OR NO PELL GRANTS AT ALL.
IT IS AN ATTACK, A DEVASTATING
ATTACK, A CRUEL ATTACK AGAINST
SOME OF THE MOST VULNERABLE
PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY.
THEY'RE CUTTING BACK ON THE
WOMEN, INFANT AND CHILDREN
NUTRITION PROGRAM.
YOU GOT LOW-INCOME WOMEN NOW,
WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THEY
DON'T GIVE BIRTH TO LOW-WEIGHT
BABIES CUT BACK ON THAT PROGRAM.
BUT WHEN WE SAY MILLIONAIRES WHO
ARE DOING PHENOMENALLY WELL
MIGHT BE ASKED TO PAY A LITTLE
BIT MORE IN TAXES, MY WORD, WE
HAVE NONE OF THAT AT AUFPLT THE
ISSUE IS -- NONE OF THAT AT ALL.
THE ISSUE IS SHARED SACRIFICE.
DON'T BALANCE THAT ON THE BACKS
OF THE WEAK AND VULNERABLE.
I THANK THE
SENATOR FROM VERMONT FOR THAT
ELOQUENT DESCRIPTION AND VERY
ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE
SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN.
I SEE THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA
THAT IS HERE FOR AN AMENDMENT.
WE WANT TO KEEP THESE AMENDMENTS
DISCUSSED, SO I THANK THE
SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.
MY PLANNED TIME TO
3:30.
INTRODUCE THOSE AMENDMENTS IS
I'LL DO THAT.
DID I WANT TO ENGAGE SOME OF THE
COMMENTS OF THE SENATOR FROM
VERMONT.
AS SOMEBODY WHO WAS ON THE
DEFICIT COMMISSION AND LOOKING
AT THAT, THE FIRST PRESUMPTION
IS MAKING SOCIAL SECURITY
SOLVENT WAS OUR GOAL.
MAKING IT SOLVENT FOR 75 YEARS.
THE FLAW IN THE ARGUMENT GIVEN
BY MY COLLEAGUE FROM VERMONT IS
THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE I.O.U.
AT THE TREASURY FOR SOCIAL
SECURITY IS GOOD.
IT'S GOOD AS LONG AS PEOPLE WILL
LOAN US MONEY.
IT'S NOT ANY GOOD IF THEY WON'T.
AND SO WHEN PEOPLE SAY WHY FIX
SOCIAL SECURITY, WE CAN FIX
SOCIAL SECURITY BY TAKING THE
VERY HAIRCUT FROM THE PEOPLE THE
SENATOR FROM VERMONT JUST
DESCRIBED AND MARKEDLY LESSENING
THE BENEFITS, EVEN THOUGH THEY
CONTINUE TO PAY INTO SOCIAL
SECURITY, THAT THEY'LL RECEIVE.
MILLIONAIRES.
THE BILLIONAIRES AND THE
WE CAN DO THAT.
BUT IF IN FACT WE DON'T SEND A
SIGNAL TO THE INTERNATIONAL
FINANCIAL COMMUNITY ON THE
LARGEST EXPENDITURE WE HAVE THAT
WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT SOLVENT,
THEN WE WON'T BE IN THE MARKET
AND AVAILABLE AND HAVE THE
ABILITY TO BORROW THE $2.8
TRILLION.
ONE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD
DISAGREE ON, THE SOCIAL SECURITY
TRUST FUND TRUSTEES HAVE SAID
SOCIAL SECURITY'S RUNNING A NET
DEFICIT THIS LAST YEAR, WILL RUN
ONE THIS YEAR AND FROM EVERY
YEAR FORWARD IN TERMS OF WHAT
COMES IN VERSUS WHAT GOES OUT.
THERE'S NO QUESTION I WANT TO
KEEP OUR COMMITMENT, AND
NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT
ELIMINATING BENEFITS EXCEPT TO
THE VERY RICH IN THIS COUNTRY IN
TERMS OF SOCIAL SECURITY.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE DEFICIT
COMMISSION RAISED THE BENEFITS
IN SOCIAL SECURITY FOR THE
POOREST IN THIS COUNTRY.
SO WE ACTUALLY DID THE OPPOSITE
OF WHAT THE SENATOR CLAIMS THAT
REPUBLICANS MIGHT WANT TO DO.
WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS TO MAKE
SURE SOCIAL SECURITY IS VIABLE
FOR THE FUTURE.
AND HAVING LOOKED AT EVERY
ASPECT OF SOCIAL SECURITY, I CAN
TELL YOU IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO
BORROW THE $2.6 TRILLION, THE
BENEFITS WON'T BE THERE.
AND SO ALTHOUGH THE MONEY HAS
BEEN STOLEN, THERE'S NO TRUST
FUND.
THERE'S NO MONEY THERE.
IF YOU READ WHAT THE HEAD OF THE
O.M.B. SAID IN 1999, HE SAID
IT'S NOT THERE.
SO WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING IN
SOCIAL SECURITY?
CONGRESSES UNDER BOTH REPUBLICAN
AND DEMOCRAT CONTROL, BOTH
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT
PRESIDENTS, PRESIDENCIES HAVE
STOLEN MONEY FROM SOCIAL
SECURITY AND SPENT IT.
THE MONEY'S GONE.
IT'S BEEN USED FOR ANOTHER
PURPOSE.
SO THERE'S TWO WAYS OF SOLVING
THAT.
ONE IS TO MAKE SOCIAL SKAOURTD
SKAOURTD -- SOCIAL SECURITY THE
PRIORITY AND NOT FUND ANYTHING
BACK.
BUT THAT UNTIL WE GET IT PAID
OR ACTUALLY FUND THAT $2.6
TRILLION BY GOING TO THE DEBT
MARKET, WHICH WE WILL GO EVERY
YEAR FROM NOW FORWARD UNDER THE
PRESENT PLAN OF SOCIAL SECURITY.
THE RATE OF TAXES BETWEEN NOW
AND 2035 THAT WILL BE TAXED WILL
RISE FROM $106,000 NOW TO
$168,000 BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.
THAT IS A 60% INCREASE IN THE
TAXES ON THE WEALTHY THAT IS
NOW.
PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED RIGHT
EVEN WITH THAT, SOCIAL SECURITY
WILL RUN A DEFICIT EVERY YEAR.
EVERY YEAR NOW FORWARD.
EVEN WITH THE $2.8 TRILLION, IT
FLOW.
STILL IS IN A NEGATIVE CASH
SO TO DENY THE FACT, IF WE DON'T
WANT TO FIX SOCIAL SECURITY,
THEN WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE
DON'T WANT TO FIX IT FOR OUR
CHILDREN'S CHILDREN OR OUR
CHILDREN.
AND I'D LIKE TO FINISH MY POINT.
IT'S NOT ABOUT TAKING SOMETHING
AWAY EXCEPT FROM THE VERY
WEALTHY.
COMMISSION.
THE FIX FROM THE DEFICIT
THAT'S WHAT IT DID.
WE ALSO ADDED BACK, IS WHEN YOU
REACH 80 -- AND A LOT OF PEOPLE
MAY BE RUNNING OUT OF THEIR
COMBINATION OF WHAT THEIR
RETIREMENT WAS PLUS THEIR SOCIAL
SECURITY -- WE GIVE ANOTHER
LITTLE BUMP.
SO WHAT THE DEFICIT COMMISSION
DID WAS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE
THE VIABILITY FOR SOCIAL
SECURITY FOR THE NEXT 75 YEARS.
AND THERE IS NO -- THE SOCIAL
SECURITY TRUSTEES KNOW WE HAVE
TO DO THIS.
EVERYBODY KNOWS WE HAVE TO DO
THIS.
AND THE QUESTION IS: DOES THIS
CONGRESS OWE THAT $2.8 TRILLION
BACK TO THE SOCIAL?
YES.
BUT WHERE DO WE GET THE MONEY TO
REPAY IT?
AND UNLESS WE CAN CALM THE
INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL MARKETS
DOWN WHERE WE MAKE MAJOR CHANGE
NOT JUST IN SOCIAL SECURITY.
IN DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, $50
BILLION OUT OF THE PENTAGON,
MODIFYING MEDICARE WHERE WE GET
THE FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE OUT
OF MEDICARE, UNLESS WE DO THOSE
THINGS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE
ABLE TO BORROW THE MONEY.
ONE FINAL FACT AND THEN I'LL
YIELD BACK TO MY CHAIRMAN
BECAUSE I HAVE A MEETING -- MY
COLLEAGUE, I HAVE A MEETING TO
GO TO.
SO FAR IN THE LAST FIVE MONTHS
WHO DO YOU THINK HAS BOUGHT OUR
BONDS TO FINANCE THE DEFICIT?
WE RAN A $223 BILLION DEFICIT
THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY.
WHO BORROWED?
WAS IT THE CHINESE?
WHO IS THE BIGGEST BUYER?
WAS?
YOU KNOW WHO THE BIGGEST BUYER
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOUGHT 70%
MARKET.
OF THE BONDS THAT WE PUT ON THE
WHAT ARE THEY DOING?
THEY'RE DEBASING OUR CURRENCY
FUTURE INFLATION,
WHICH WILL HURT THE VERY PEOPLE
WHO ARE GOING TO BE ON SOCIAL
SECURITY, BECAUSE THE COST OF
LIVING INDEX WILL NEVER TRULY
INFLATION.
KEEP UP WITH THE REAL COST OF
AND ALL OF US HAVE GOTTEN
LETTERS FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS
RIGHT?
WONDERING WHY THERE WAS NO COLA.
WE KNOW WHY THERE WAS NO COLA.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT FOOD AND
TRANSPORTATION COSTS AND WHAT
THEY'VE DONE OVER THE LAST THREE
YEARS, THAT'S THE THING THAT'S
IMPORTANT TO SENIORS.
THEIR HEALTH CARE COSTS, THEIR
HOUSING COSTS, THEIR FOOD COSTS.
YET, WE HAVE A COLA SYSTEM THAT
SAYS WE'RE NOT GOING TO
RECOGNIZE THAT.
SO IF IN FACT W
-- SO IF IN FACT WE GET INTO A
HYPERINFLATION SYSTEM BECAUSE
THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS BUYING
THE BONDS BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE
WILL BUY THEM, RIGHT NOW 70% --
30% ARE BOUGHT IN THE MARKET.
FINAL POINT:
THE LARGEST BOND TRADER IN THE
WORLD, PIMCO, LAST WEEK SOLD
EVERY GOVERNMENT -- U.S.
GOVERNMENT BOND THEY HAVE.
YOU KNOW WHY?
THEY EXPECT THE PRICE OF THE
BOND TO GO DOWN BECAUSE THEY
EXPECT THE INTEREST RATE TO GO
UP.
WHAT HAPPENS TO US IF WE DON'T
FIX SOCIAL SECURITY, IF THE
INTEREST RATES ARE GOING TO BE A
LOT HIGHER ON OUR DEBT?
AND IF THEY'RE A LOT HIGHER AND
WE OWE $14 TRILLION, FOR EVERY
1% INCREASE IN THE COST OF
BORROWING WE HAVE, IT ADDS TO
OUR DEFICIT $140 BILLION.
SO I'M HONORED THAT SENATOR
SANDERS IS ADAMANT ABOUT MAKING
SURE WE KEEP OUR COMMITMENTS,
BUT IN TERMS OF CASH FLOW, IT
ISN'T THERE.
AND WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT.
AND THE ONLY WAY WE CREATE THE
CONFIDENCE IS FOR THE
INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL
COMMUNITY TO SAY, YOU HAVE A
SOLVENT PROGRAM FOR 75 YEARS.
THE LARGEST SEGMENT OF YOUR
EXPENDITURES, WE GET IT WE'RE
GOING TO LEND YOU THE MONEY.
IF WE DON'T GET IT WE'RE GOING
TO PAY FOR IT ANYWAY.
I'D RATHER FOR US TO BE IN A
SITUATION WHERE WE CROASM THERE
ISN'T ONE SENATOR THAT WANT TO
TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM NEEDY
SENIORS WHO ARE ON SOCIAL
SECURITY.
THIS IS ABOUT MAKING CHANGES FAR
DOWN THE ROAD THAT WILL AFFECT
PEOPLE 30 YEARS FROM NOW, 40
YEARS FROM NOW, 50 YEARS FROM
NOW AND IT MAKES SENSE TO DO IT.
WITH THAT, I'D YIELD BACK TO THE
SENATOR FROM VEMPLET.
I THANK MY
SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.
LET ME MAKE A FEW POINTS, IF I
MIGHT.
ARE YOU LEAVING?
DIALOGUE.
THEN WE'LL CONTINUE THE
BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE A FEW
POINTS.
NUMBER ONE, THE SENATOR FROM
OKLAHOMA GAVE HIS UNDERSTANDING
ABOUT WHAT THE DEBT COMMISSION
WOULD DO TO SOCIAL SECURITY.
I DO NOT AGREE WITH HIS
CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT THAT
COMMISSION DOES.
IN POINT OF FACT, WHAT THE DEBT
COMMISSION DOES DO IS CUT
RETIREMENT BENEFITS BY MORE THAN
35% FOR YOUNG WORKERS ENTERING
THE WORKFORCE WORKFORCE TODAY.
35%.
TODAY'S 20-YEAR-OLD WORKERS WHO
RETIRE AT AGE 65 WOULD SEE THEIR
BENEFITS CUT BY 17%, IF THEIR
WAGES AVERAGE $43,000 OVER THEIR
WORKINGWORKING LIVES.
BY 30% IF THEIR WAGES AVERAGE
$69,000 OVER THEIR WORKING
LIVES, AND BY 36% IF THEIR WAGES
AVERAGE $107,000 OVER THEIR
WORKING LIVES, ACCORDING TO THE
SOCIAL SECURITY CHIEF ACTUARY.
THE PROPOSED CUTS WOULD APPLY TO
RETIREES, DISABLED WORKS AND
THEIR FAMILIES -- DISABLED
WORKERS, AND THEIR FAMILIES,
CHILDREN AND THEIR WIDOWERS.
SO IT IS NOT ACCURATE TO SAY
THAT THE DEBT COMMISSION LEFT UN
UNSCATHED WORKERS.
QUITE THE CONTRARY.
DEVASTATING CUTS TO YOUNG
WORKERS.
BUT LET US ANSWER THE QUESTION:
IF THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA
WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT SOCIAL
SECURITY IS FINANCIALLY SOLVENT
FOR THE NEXT 75 YEARS, WHICH I
AGREE WITH, I WANT TO SEE THAT
AS WE WILL, THERE IS AN EASY WAY
TO DO IT THERE IS A FAIR WAY TO
DO IT AND IT DOESN'T REQUIRE
SLASHING BENEFITS FOR YOUNGER
WORKERS.
WHEN BARACK OBAMA RAN FOR
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
HE HAD A PRETTY GOOD IDEA.
I HOPE HE STILL HAS THAT IDEA.
WHEN HE SAID IS THAT IT IS
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT
RIGHT NOW SOMEBODY MAKING $1
MILLION A YEAR PAYS THE SAME
AMOUNT OF MONEY INTO THE SOCIAL
SECURITY TRUST FUND AS SOMEBODY
WHO MAKES $106,000.
IF YOU LIFT THAT CAP, START AT
$250,000, ASK THOSE PEOPLE TO
CONTRIBUTE INTO THE SOCIAL
SECURITY TRUST FUND, YOU WILL GO
A VERY LONG WAY TO SOLVING THE
FINANCIAL SOLVES SOLVENCY OF SOCIAL
SECURITY.
I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT.
THAT IS CERTAINLY NOT WHAT THE
DEFICIT REDUCTION COMMISSION DID
DO.
LET ME DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE VERY
BRIEFLY, I SAY TO THE SENATOR
FROM LOUISIANA.
WE KEEP HEARING THAT THE SOCIAL
SECURITY TRUST FUND JUST HAS A
BUNCH, A PILE OF WORTHLESS
I.O.U.'S.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT
SOCIAL SECURITY INVESTS THE
SURPLUS MONEY IT RECEIVES FROM
WORKERS, FROM THE PAYROLL TAX,
INTO U.S. GOVERNMENT BONDS, THE
SAME BONDS THAT CHINA OR ANYBODY
ELSE PURCHASES.
AND THESE BONDS ARE BACKED BY
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, AND IN
OUR ENTIRE HISTORY -- AND MANY
OF US WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS
CONTINUES -- THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER DEFAULTED
ON ITS DEBT OBLIGATIONS.
SO THE POINT IS TO SAY THAT
THESE ARE WORTHLESS I.O.U.'S.
IT IS NOT DISSIMILAR TO SAY,
GEE, GHAST?
BECAUSE WE HAVE A DEEP DEFICIT
AND A DEEPALITY DEBT, WE DON'T
HAVE ANY MONEY TO FUND EQUIPMENT
FOR OUR SOLDIERS WHO ARE OUT IN
THE FIELD IN AFGHANISTAN OR
IRAQ.
THAT'S JUST WORTHLESS I.O. U.S.
WE CAN'T FUND THEM.
THAT'S OF COURSE NONE NONSENSE.
SO DO WE'VE TO ADDRESS THE
DEFICIT CRISIS?
YES, WE DO.
BUT MY FRIEND FROM OKLAHOMA DID
NOT RESPOND TO THE ISSUE OF WHY,
IF HE AND HIS FRIENDS ARE SO
CONCERNED ABOUT OUR DEFICIT
CRISIS THEY VOTE YEAR AFTER YEAR
FOR HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN TAX BREAKS FOR THE
COUNTRY.
WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN THIS
THEY WANT TO REPEAL THE ESTATE
TAX WHICH WOULD PROVIDE $1
TOP .3%.
TRILLION IN TAX BREAKS TO THE
WITH THAT, MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD
YIELD THE FLOOR.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
THINK THIS HAS BEEN A VERY --
THE
SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
THINK THIS HAS BEEN A VERY
INTERESTING DEBATE ON ONE OF OUR
AMENDMENTS.
BUT IT REALLY GETS TO THE HEART
OF THE LARGER AMENDMENT HERE ON
CAPITAL HILL AND IN THE MINDS OF
ALL AMERICANS:
HOW ARE WE GOING TO CLOSE THIS
BUDGET DEFICIT, ANNUAL DEFICITS,
AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO
SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE
NATIONAL DEBT?
AND I'M ACTUALLY PLEASED THAT
THIS DISCUSSION IS TAKING PLACE
ON THIS BILL.
I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE
BECAUSE THIS BILL'S INTENTION --
IT--ITS UNDERLYING INTENTION IS TO
CLOSE THAT GAP BY CREATING JOBS.
THERE ARE SOME OF US AROUND HERE
THAT ACTUALLY BELIEVE AND KNOW
-- ALTHOUGH THERE ARE ARGUMENTS
ON THE OTHER SIDE; THEY'RE NOT
ACCOMPLISH THAT BY CUTTING
VERY STRONG -- THAT YOU CAN
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING ALONE.
THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY,
SENATOR RAND, WAS HERE ARGUING,
SORT OF ALONG THAT LINE THAT IF
WE JUST ACCEPT HIS AMENDMENT --
WHICH I WILL STRONGLY OBJECT TO
-- AND CUT $200 BILLION OUT OF
THE DISCRETIONARY SIDES OF THE
BUDGET, THAT WILL GET US, YOU
KNOW, IN THE DIRECTION WE NEED
TO BE.
ALL THAT WILL DO IS EAT THE SEED
CORN THAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO
INVEST IN IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND EDUCATION TO
SECURE OUR FUTURE FOR OUR
CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.
AND I WANT TO REMIND SENATORS
THAT SINCE 1982, NONMILITARY
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING -- I'M
SORRY, MILITARY DISCRETIONARY
SPENDING HAS NEVER DROPPED BELOW
5.5% IN ANY GIVEN YEAR.
SO SINCE 1982, NONMILITARY
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING HAS NEVER
DROPPED BY MORE THAN 5.5% IN ANY
GIVEN YEAR.
SENATOR PAUL'S AMENDMENT, IF
ADOPTED -- I DOUBT THAT IT WILL
BE -- WOULD PROPOSE A 50%
REDUCTION IN THE DISCRETIONARY
FUNDING OF EDUCATION, ENERGY,
HOUSING, AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
IT IS A DRASTIC CUT THAT WOULD
NOT SUPPORT A FOUNDATION FOR
GROWTH AND EXPANSION.
BUT, HAVING SAID THAT, THE OTHER
THING THAT IS OFFENSIVE TO THAT
APPROACH IS THAT THERE'S NEVER
-- IS THAT THERE NEVER SEEMS TO
BE A DISCUSSION OF REDUCTION OF
MILITARY BUGS BUGS BUDGETS WHEN IT COMES
TO FRAUD AND ABUSE.
THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF DOLLARS MA THE MILITARY
BUDGET ITSELF.
THEN WE HAVE MEMBERS WHO ARE
TRYING TO USE THE SOCIAL
SECURITY SITUATION TO ARGUE FOR
THEIR POINT THAT THE ROOF IS
FALLING IN, THE WORLD IS
COLLAPSING AND WE'VE GOT TO CUT
BACK ON SOCIAL SECURITY.
I WANT TO ADD TO WHAT SENATOR
SANDERS SAID AND CLARIFY
SOMETHING.
AND I DO RESPECT SENATOR COBURN.
NO MEMBER HAS WORKED HARDER ON
THE ISSUE OF DEFICIT AND DEBT
DEFICIT REDUCTION.
AND I DON'T AGREE WITH
EVERYTHING, BUT I MOST CERTAINLY
RECOGNIZE EFFORT WHEN I SEE IT.
BUT WHEN HE SAYS THAT THE SOCIAL
SECURITY PROGRAM IS RUNNING A
DEFICIT IN TERMS OF THE MONEY IN
AND THE MONEY OUT, HE'S CORRECT.
THE REASON IS BECAUSE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT USED THE
SURPLUS OVER THE LAST 15 OR 20
YEARS TO FUND OTHER OPERATIONS
OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT THE
SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM ITSELF
IS INTACT AND WHEN THAT MONEY IS
PAID BACK, IT WILL HAVE A
SURPLUS, AS SENATOR SANDERS
SAID.
SO USING THE FACT THAT IT'S
RUNNING AN ANNUAL DEFICIT TO
ARGUE FOR EITHER CUTTING
BENEFITS TO SOCIAL SECURITY OR
CUTTING BENEFITS FROM EDUCATION
OR FROM HEALTH TO PAY FOR SOCIAL
SECURITY, IS NOT A LEGITIMATE
ARGUMENT.
AGAIN, SOCIAL SECURITY IS
INTACT.
IT IS ACTUALLY RUNNING A SURPLUS
SURPLUS.
IF THEY WOULD HAVE A SURPLUS
RIGHT NOW IN THE ACCOUNT -- THEY
WOULD HAVE A SURPLUS RIGHT NOW
IN THE ACCOUNT IF THE MONEY HAD
REMAINED IN THERE.
EVEN IN THIS DISCUSSION, WE
NEVER, EVER HEAR FROM THE OTHER
SIDE THE WILLINGNESS TO RAISE
$50 BILLION, IF WE'RE TRYING TO
GET TO $100 BILLION IN CUTS --
SOME PEOPLE WANT TO GET TO $200
BILLION, BUT WE'D LIKE TO CLOSE
THE GAP ANYWHERE FROM $10
BILLION TO $100 BILLION -- IF
YOU WANTED TO GET $50 BILLION BY
RAISING THE INCOME TAX ON PEOPLE
THAT MAKE OVER $1 MILLION, WE
COULD GET HALF OF THAT.
BUT WE NEVER HEAR THAT.
WE JUST HEAR CUT EDUCATION, CUT
HEALTH CARE, CUT HOMELAND
SECURITY, AND IT JUST -- I DON'T
THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
I KNOW WE HAVE TO CUT BACK ON
SPENDING.
I KNOW WE HAVE TO GET OUR
DEFICIT UNDER CROAVMENT AND I
KNOW THAT OUR DEBT IS HIGH.
BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACHIEVE
THE GOAL OF FISCAL
RESPONSIBILITY BY JUST CUTTING
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING ON THE
DOMESTIC SIDE, WHICH MEANS
CUTTING HEAD START, PELL GRANTS
AND EDUCATION AND REFUSING --
REFUSING, ADD MONTHLY REFUSING
-- ADAMANTLY REFUSING TO RAISE
THE INCOME TAX ON PEOPLE WHO
MAKE OVER $1 MILLION.
SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY
COUPLE OF WEEKS.
INTERESTING DEBATE OVER THE NEXT
IT WON'T BE SETTLED ON THIS
BILL, THE SBIR BILL.
BUT IT WILL BE SETTLED IN THE
NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS IN THIS
COFNLG I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO
THAT GAIVMENT I THINK THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE AN
OPEN AND HONEST DEBATE WHAT IS
GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY.
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
I AM GOING TO SUGGEST THE
AND OTHERS MAY COME TO THE FLOOR
TO SPEAK ON OTHER SUBJECTS.
I SEE SENATOR GRASSLEY HERE, SO
LET ME TAKE BACK THE QUORUM AND
SAY SENATOR GRASSLEY IS FREE TO
SPEAK ON THIS OR OTHER MATTERS.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM IOWA.
I BELIEVE THAT
THERE IS AN AMENDMENT BEEN
SUBMITTED THAT HOPEFULLY WE WILL
VOTE ON CALLED THE McCONNELL
AMENDMENT WHICH BASICALLY TAKES
AWAY FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY THE AUTHORITY
TO REGULATE GREENHOUSE GASES.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY GETS THIS POWER FROM A
SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT SAID
THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO
THAT.
THAT SUPREME COURT DECISION WAS
ABOUT TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO,
CAME ABOUT 16 OR 17 YEARS AFTER
THE 1990 CLEAN AIR ACT WAS
PASSED.
THOSE OF US THAT WERE AROUND
HERE AND DEBATED AND WORKED ON
THE CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1990 DON'T
REMEMBER ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT
E.P.A. UNDER THAT LEGISLATION
HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
GREENHOUSE GASES.
BUT OBVIOUSLY THE SUPREME COURT
READ THE LAW DIFFERENT THAN WE
DO.
AND SO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY WAS TOLD, YOU
CAN REGULATE GREENHOUSE GASES.
NOW, THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY DIDN'T HAVE TO
DO THAT, BUT I SUPPOSE THEY'RE
LIKE REGULATORS GENERALLY.
YOU KNOW, YOU KIND OF SAY, WHY
DO COWS M COWS MOO, WHY DON'T PIGS
SQUEAL, AND WHY DO REGULATORS
REGULATE?
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT REGULATORS
DO.
SO THEY ARE THEY'RE IS GOING TO
ISSUE A REGULATION IF THEY'VE
GOT THE AUTHORITY TO DO T THE
SITUATION IS THIS:
IF WE DON'T TAKE AWAY THE
AUTHORITY AND IN A SENSE
OVERTURN THE SUPREME COURT CASE,
E.P.A. IS GOING TO PUT US IN A
POSITION TO BE ECONOMICALLY
UNCOMPETITIVE WITH THE REST OF
THE WORLD, PARTICULARLY IN
MANUFACTURING.
WHEN YOU INCREASE THE COST OF
ENERGY BY ANYWHERE FROM $1,800
UNDER ONE STUDY TO $3,000 UNDER
ANOTHER STUDY PER HOUSEHOLD,
YOU'RE VERY DRAMATICALLY
INCREASING THE COST OF
PRODUCTION OF MANUFACTURING.
AND IF YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT TOO
MANY MANUFACTURING JOBS GOING
OVERSEAS, AND WE WOULD LET THE
E.P.A. FOLLOW THROUGH WITH WHAT
THEY WANT TO DO, INCREASING THE
COST OF ENERGY, WE WILL LOSE ALL
OF OUR MANUFACTURING OVERSEAS.
AND I HAVEN'T CHECKED THE
RECORD, BUT MY GUESS IS THAT A
LOT OF OUR COLLEAGUES WHO ARE
FIGHTING THE AMENDMENT AND THINK
IT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO
ARE THE VERY PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY
*** GRINNED AND -- CHAGRINED
AND BLAMING AMERICAN INDUSTRY
BECAUSE JOBS ARE GOING OVERSEAS.
WELL, IF WE'RE GOING TO PASS A
LAW THAT INCREASES THE COST OF
ENERGY IN THIS COUNTRY, WE'RE
NOT GOING TO HAVE A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD WITH OUR
COMPETITORS OVERSEAS.
AND THAT'S WHY I'VE ALWAYS SAID
IF YOU WANT TO REGULATE Co2,
YOU NEED TO DO IT BY
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT.
BECAUSE IF CHINA'S NOT ON THE
SAME LEVEL PLAYING FIELD AS WE
ARE, THEN WE'RE GOING TO LOSE
OUR MANUFACTURING TO CHINA AND
OTHER COUNTRIES.
AND IT HAPPENS THAT CHINA PUTS
MORE Co2 IN THE AIR THAN WE
DO.
AND YOU TAKE CHINA AND BRAZIL
AND INDIA AND INDONESIA AND THEY
PUT A LOT MORE Co2 INTO THE
UNITED STATES, OR INTO THE AIR
THAN THE UNITED STATES DOES.
AND YET, SOMEHOW E.P.A. IS OF
THE VIEW THAT THE UNITED STATES
CAN CUT DOWN AND SOLVE THE
GLOBAL WARMING PROBLEM.
WELL, EVEN THE E.P.A. DIRECTOR
HAS TESTIFIED BEFORE COMMITTEES
OF CONGRESS THAT IF THE REST OF
THE WORLD DOESN'T DO IT, WE'RE
NOT GOING TO MAKE A DENT IN
Co2 JUST BY THE UNITED STATES
DOING IT.
BUT THE ARGUMENT GOES THAT THE
UNITED STATES OUGHT TO SHOW
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP IN THIS
GLOBAL ECONOMY WE HAVE.
AND IF THE UNITED STATES WOULD
DO SOMETHING ABOUT Co2, THE
ALONG.
REST OF THE WORLD WOULD FOLLOW
BUT CHINA'S ALREADY SAID THEY
WEREN'T GOING TO FOLLOW ALONG.
EVEN JAPAN THAT, SIGNED ON TO
THE KYOTO TREATY, SAID THAT THEY
WOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN
EXTENDING THE KYOTO TREATY
BEYOND 2012.
AND SO, IF THE UNITED STATES DID
IT BY ITSELF, UNDER THE GUISE OF
BEING A WORLD LEADER AND SETTING
AN EXAMPLE AND THE REST OF THE
WORLD DIDN'T DO IT, UNCLE SAM
WOULD SOON BECOME UNCLE SUCKER,
AND WE WOULD FIND OUR
MANUFACTURING FLEEING THE UNITED
STATES TO PLACES WHERE THEY
DON'T HAVE REGULATION ON Co2,
WHERE ENERGY EXPENSES AREN'T SO
HIGH, AND WE'D LOSE THE JOBS
ACCORDINGLY.
AND IN A SENSE THEN, THOSE
PEOPLE THAT HAVE COMPLAINED FOR
DECADES ABOUT AMERICAN
MANUFACTURING MOVING OVERSEAS
WOULD DESTINE THE UNITED STATES
TO DO MORE OF IT.
AND SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW
PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
LOSING JOBS OVERSEAS COULD BE
AMENDMENT.
FIGHTING THE McCONNELL
BECAUSE IF YOU WANT TO PRESERVE
JOBS IN AMERICA, OUR INDUSTRY
HAS TO BE COMPETITIVE WITH THE
REST OF THE WORLD.
SO I HOPE THAT THE McCONNELL
AMENDMENT WILL BE ADOPTED.
AND I HOPE THERE WILL BE SOME
CONSISTENCY IN THE REASONING OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
THE MOVEMENT OF JOBS OVERSEAS,
THAT IT'S INHREBGT WALL
DISUPON -- INTELLECTUAL DISHOPB
MINORITY TO SUPPORT E.P.A.
ADOPTING REGULATIONS THAT'S
GOING TO MAKE AMERICA
UNCOMPETITIVE.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH
SEEKING A SOLUTION TO THE Co2
PROBLEM.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH
SEEKING, WORKING ON THE ISSUE OF
GLOBAL WARMING.
BUT IT OUGHT TO BE A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD FOR AMERICAN
INDUSTRY SO THAT WE CAN BE
COMPETITIVE WITH THE REST OF THE
WORLD AND NOT LOSE OUR INDUSTRY,
NOT LOSE OUR MANUFACTURING
OVERSEAS AND NOT LOSING THE JOBS
THAT ARE CONNECTED WITH IT.
BUT IT OFTEN IS THE CASE THAT
WHEN EITHER THE COURTS OR THE
CONGRESS DELEGATES BROAD POWERS
TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
AGENCIES, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU GIVE
MILE.
THEM AN INCH AND THEY TAKE A
AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER
EXAMPLES AS WELL, AND I'LL GO
INTO SOME OF THEM IN JUST A
MOMENT, OF E.P.A. HAVING SOME
AUTHORITY AND MOVING VERY
DRAMATICALLY IN A WAY THAT
DOESN'T MEET THE COMMONSENSE
TEST.
AND THE WORK OF E.P.A. ON Co2
IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF, FIRST
OF ALL, THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO
IT JUST BECAUSE THE SUPREME
COURT SAID THAT THEY COULD DO
IT.
BUT LIKE REGULATORS, THEY WANT
TO REGULATE.
AND THEY'RE MOVING AHEAD.
I SUPPOSE THEY'RE MOVING AHEAD
ALSO BECAUSE IN 2009 THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES PASSED A BILL
REGULATING Co2, A BILL THAT
WOULD HAVE MADE THE UNITED
STATES VERY UNCOMPETITIVE, AS
I'VE STATED THE E.P.A. WILL.
BUT THE SENATE DIDN'T TAKE IT
UP.
AND I THINK THIS ADMINISTRATION
DONE.
IS INTENT UPON GETTING THE JOB
AND SO THEY GO TO E.P.A., ISSUE
A RULE BECAUSE CONGRESS ISN'T
PASSING LEGISLATION.
IT'S SO TYPICAL OF SO MANY
THINGS THAT THIS
ADMINISTRATION'S DOING THAT
BECAUSE CONGRESS WON'T PASS A
LAW THAT WE'LL SEE WHAT WE CAN
DO BY REGULATION.
AND SO THEY'RE SETTING OUT TO
ACCOMPLISH A LOT OF CHANGE IN
PUBLIC POLICY BECAUSE CONGRESS
WON'T ACT, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO
ACT ANYWAY.
AND IF THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY
TO DO IT, THEY'LL PROBABLY GET
AWAY WITH IT.
YOU KNOW, AVOID THE WILL OF THE
PEOPLE, THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE
EXPRESSED THROUGH THE CONGRESS
OF THE UNITED STATES.
THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, CONGRESS
DOESN'T DO SOMETHING, SO CAN THE
ADMINISTRATION IGNORE THE WILL
OF THE PEOPLE?
YES, THEY CAN IF THEY WANT TO.
BUT THEY SHOULD NOT, IN MY
JUDGMENT.
AND IT BRINGS ME TO NOT ONLY THE
McCONNELL AMENDMENT, BUT A LOT
OF OTHER THINGS THAT WE SHOULD
BE DOING AROUND HERE TO PREVENT
THIS OUTRAGES OVERREACH --
OUTRAGEOUS OVERREACH BY NOT ONLY
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY BUT BY A LOT OF OTHER
AGENCIES AS WELL.
BECAUSE WHEN THE E.P.A. AND
OTHER AGENCIES PROMULGATE RULES
THAT GO BEYOND THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS AND NEVER SHOULD HAVE
PASSED, IT UNDERMINES OUR SYSTEM
OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN HOLD
THEIR CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE FOR
PASSING LAWS THAT THEY DON'T
LIKE.
HOWEVER, WHEN UNELECTED
BUREAUCRATS IMPLEMENT POLICIES
WITH A FORCE OF LAW THAT THEY
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET
THROUGH THE CONGRESS, AND THAT'S
WITHOUT DIRECT ACCOUNTABILITY
WHEN A REGULATOR ACTS INSTEAD OF
CONGRESS ACTING, THESE POLICIES
THAT TAKE EFFECT DO SOMETHING
THAT'S VERY WRONG WHEN IT'S
AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PAOEFPLT
PEOPLE.
SO I THINK IT'S -- WILL OF THE
SO I THINK IT'S TIME FOR
CONGRESS TO REASSERT ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE.
WE TRY TO DO IT FROM TIME TO
TIME ON A PROCESS CALLED THE
CONGRESSIONAL VETO.
I RECALL LAST JUNE THE SENATOR
FROM ALASKA, SENATOR MURKOWSKI,
PROPOSED DOING THAT ON THESE
VERY RULES AFFECTING CO-2.
WE DID NOT GET A MAJORITY VOTE
SO IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
MAYBE IN THE NEW CONGRESS SUCH
AN ATTEMPT WOULD GET A MAJORITY
VOTE.
AND IF WE CAN'T APPLY THAT
CONGRESSIONAL VETO AGAIN TO
THOSE RULES, THEN THAT BRINGS
ABOUT THE McCONNELL AMENDMENT
THAT I'M SPEAKING ABOUT TO TAKE
AWAY THE AUTHORITY OF E.P.A. TO
DO IT.
BUT PERHAPS WE CAN USE THE
CONGRESSIONAL VETO ON A LOT OF
OTHER ISSUES YET THAT REGULATORS
ARE REGULATING MAYBE AGAINST THE
WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
AND I HOPE WE WILL.
BUT THERE'S ONE THAT SENATOR
PAUL HAS SUGGESTED THAT I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO BE ADDED AS
A COSPONSOR TO AMENDMENT 231.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THAT WOULD BE
R-E-I-N-S.
THE -- HE USES THE ACRONYM,
IT'S CALLED THE REGULATION FROM
SCRUTINY.
THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED OF
AND BASICALLY WHAT IT DOES --
AND I APPLAUD SENATOR PAUL FOR
HIS AMENDMENT, AND I WILL SURELY
VOTE FOR IT -- AND THAT IS THAT
WE DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO
AGENCIES IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
OF GOVERNMENT TO WRITE
REGULATIONS.
IF THOSE REGULATIONS ARE
CONSIDERED -- QUOTE, UNQUOTE --
MAJOR REGULATIONS, THEN THEY
WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED TO
THE CONGRESS FOR OUR APPROVAL
BEFORE THEY CAN GO INTO EFFECT.
AND THEN WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE
SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT BEFORE
THEY WOULD GO INTO EFFECT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT'S A
NATURAL EXTENSION OF CONGRESS'S
AUTHORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
TO LEGISLATE AND TO BE THE ONLY
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THAT CAN
LEGISLATE.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE A VERY
ADEQUATE CHECK ON OUT-OF-CONTROL
BUREAUCRACY THAT THEY CAN ONLY
DO THOSE THINGS THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED THEY DO IN THE
LEGISLATION THEY PASS.
I WOULD EXTEND MY REMARKS ON
SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT UNRELATED
TO THE McCONNELL AMENDMENT BUT
STILL TO THE OVERREACH OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
AND THIS IS IN REGARD TO SOME OF
THEIR REGULATIONS IN
AGRICULTURE.
AND WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR
REGULATION OF AGRICULTURE,
INSTEAD OF AOEPL STANDING FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
I THINK IT STANDS FOR END
PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE.
NOW, THAT'S NOT THEIR INTENT.
BUT IN THIS CITY OF
WASHINGTON -- AND I DESCRIBE IT
SOMETIMES AS AN ISLAND
SURROUNDED BY REALITY -- THAT
IT'S AN EVIDENCE OF NOT ENOUGH
COMMON SENSE BEING PUT INTO THE
THOUGHT PROCESS OF ISSUING
REGULATIONS.
AND I COULD GIVE SEVERAL
EXAMPLES, BUT I MAY JUST GIVE A
FEW.
BUT BEFORE I GIVE THOSE EXAMPLES
, I WANT TO COMPLIMENT
E.P.A. ON ONE THING.
AFTER A YEAR OR TWO AGO THAT ONE
OF THEIR SUBDIVISION HEADS
TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS AND
THE ISSUE WAS AGRICULTURE, AND
SHE SAID "I'D NEVER BEEN ON A
FAMILY FARM."
IN THE 20-SOMETHING YEARS OF
WORKING WITH E.P.A. AND DEALING
WITH SUCH ISSUES, I INVITED HER
TO A FAMILY FARM AND SHE CAME
AND SPENT -- SHOWED A GREAT DEAL
OF INTEREST.
WE HAD A VERY THOROUGH TOUR OF
SOME FACILITIES, RESEARCH,
AGRICULTURE AND BIOFUELS.
AND THEY WERE VERY THANKFUL THAT
WE DID IT.
AND I BELIEVE THAT IT HAS HELPED
THEIR CONSIDERATION OF THE
IMPACT THAT MAYBE SOME OF THEIR
REGULATION WRITING HAS ON
AGRICULTURE.
BUT STILL I'M NOT TOTALLY
CONVINCED.
AND SO I WOULD USE ONE OR TWO
EXAMPLES OF REGULATION THAT'S
OUT OF CONTROL.
AND ONE OF THEM WOULD DEAL WITH
ISSUE.
WHAT I CALL THE FUGITIVE DUST
FUGITIVE DUST IS A TERM THAT
E.P.A. USES TO REGULATE WHAT
THEY CALL PARTICULATE MATTER.
AND THE THEORY BEHIND FUGITIVE
DUST RULES IS THAT IF YOU'RE
MAKING DUST THAT IS HARMFUL,
THEN YOU HAVE TO KEEP IT WITHIN
YOUR PROPERTY LINE.
SO LET'S SEE THE REALITY OF
THAT.
YOU'RE FARMING.
THE WIND'S BLOWING, AND YOU'VE
GOT TO WORK IN THE FIELDS.
AND THE WIND'S BLOWING SO HARD
THAT YOU CAN'T KEEP THE DUST
WHEN YOU'RE TILLING THE FIELDS
WITHIN YOUR PROPERTY LINE.
FARM?
WELL, ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO NOT
ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO NOT RAISE
FOOD?
ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO NOT BE
CONCERNED ABOUT PRODUCTION OF
FOOD THAT'S SO NECESSARY TO OUR
NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THE SOCIAL
COHESION OF OUR SOCIETY BECAUSE,
YOU KNOW, WE'RE ONLY NINE MEALS
AWAY FROM A REVOLUTION.
IF YOU GO NINE MEALS WITHOUT
EATING, YOU KNOW, AND YOU DON'T
HAVE PROSPECTS OF IT, ARE YOU
GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE REVOLTS
LIKE THEY DO IN OTHER COUNTRIES
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
FOOD?
NO, WE HAVE A STABLE SUPPLY OF
FOOD IN IN COUNTRY SO WE
STKROEPBT TO WORRY ABOUT IT.
BUT SUPPOSE WE DID HAVE TO WORRY
ABOUT IT?
THERE'S MORE TO FARMING THAN
AMERICA.
JUST THE PROSPERITY OF RURAL
THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SOCIAL
COHESION AND ALL THOSE THINGS.
BUT THE POINT IS THAT THEY'VE
ISSUED, THAT THEY'RE THINKING
ABOUT ISSUING A RULE.
IN FACT, THEY STARTED A PROCESS
DOWN THE ROAD TWO OR THREE YEARS
AGO OF ISSUING A RULE.
MAYBE A YEAR OR TWO FROM NOW
HOPEFULLY THEY'LL DECIDE NOT TO.
IT SAYS THAT YOU'VE GOT TO KEEP
LINE.
THE DUST WITHIN YOUR PROPERTY
SO I JUST WONDER WHEN I TALK
ABOUT THE COMMON SENSE THAT'S
LACKING IN THIS BIG CITY, NOT
JUST TPHOEPBL E.P.A. BUT IN A --
NOT JUST ONLY IN E.P.A. BUT IN A
LOT OF AGENCIES, DO THEY REALIZE
THAT ONLY GOD DETERMINES WHEN
THE WIND BLOWS?
DO THEY REALIZE THAT ONLY GOD
DETERMINES WHEN SOYBEANS HAVE
13% MOISTURE IN SEPTEMBER OR
OCTOBER.
AND THAT 13% MOISTURE YOU'VE GOT
TO HARVEST THEM AND YOU'VE ONLY
GOT ABOUT TWO OR THREE DAYS OF
IDEAL WEATHER TO HARVEST THEM.
AND WHEN YOU COMBINE SOYBEANS,
DUST HAPPENS.
AND IF DUST HAPPENS AND YOU
CAN'T KEEP IT WITHIN YOUR
PROPERTY LINES, YOU'RE GOING TO
VIOLATE THE E.P.A. REGULATION.
WHAT ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DO?
SHUT DOWN AND LET A WHOLE YEAR'S
SUPPLY OF FOOD STAY IN THE
FIELD?
NO.
GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICES WOULD
SAY THAT WHEN BEANS GET TO 13%
MOISTURE WHETHER THE WIND'S
BLOWING OR NOT, YOU'RE GOING TO
TAKE YOUR COMBINE OUT INTO THE
FIELD AND NOT WORRY ABOUT THE
DUST.
AND DOES SOMEBODY DOWN AT E.P.A.
THAT JOHN DEERE'S AND
CATERPILLAR AND NEW HOLLAND AND
ALL THOSE COMPANIES ARE THINKING
ABOUT, WE HAVE THE PROBLEMS WITH
THE E.P.A., WE HAVE DO SOMETHING
ABOUT THE DUST AND WE HAVE TO
CONTROL IT COMING OUT OF OUR
COMBINES OR OUR TILLAGE GOES
ACROSS THE FIELD, WE HAVE TO
CONSIDER THE DUST THAT COMES UP
FROM TILLING THE FIELDS?
WELL, WE'VE ASKED THESE
MANUFACTURERS.
FLEEMS.
THEY DON'T HAVE ANY SOLUTIONS TO
AND I THINK THEY -- TO THESE
PROBLEMS.
AND I THINK THEY PROBABLY THINK
IT'S RIDICULOUS AFTER 6,000
YEARS OF AGRICULTURE THROUGHOUT
OUR SOCIETY THAT IT'S REALLY AN
ISSUE.
BUT THERE'S PEOPLE DOWN AT
E.P.A. THAT THINKS IT'S AN
ISSUE.
AND SO I USE THE FUGITIVE DUST
THING AS ONE EXAMPLE OF THEIR --
OF DO THEY REALIZE WHAT THEY'RE
DOING TO PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE?
ANOTHER ONE WOULD BE THE SPILT
MILK.
YOU KNOW, MILK HAS FAT IN IT.
SO NOW THEY'RE SAYING THAT --
THAT DAIRY FARMERS, WELL, IF
THEY HAVE ABOVE-THE-GROUND TANKS
TO STORE THEIR MILK, THEY'RE
JUST LIKE ABOVE-THE-GROUND OIL
TANKS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE
THE SAME REGULATION APPLIED TO
THEM AS APPLIED TO PETROLEUM.
NOW, THE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
ON THIS HAVE BEEN DELAYED
PENDING ACTION ON AN EXEMPTION,
SO MAYBE THIS WON'T GO THROUGH,
BUT JUST THINK HOW RIDICULOUS IT
IS THAT PEOPLE AT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ARE SAYING THAT IF YOU'RE A
DAIRY FARMER AND YOU HAPPEN TO
SPILL A LITTLE MILK, YOU HAVE TO
FOLLOW THE SAME ENVIRONMENTAL
REQUIREMENTS AS AN OIL COMPANY
IF THEY SPILLED OIL AND THE
CLEANUP OF THAT.
BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE ON THESE
SORT OF RULES.
I'VE GOT OTHER EXAMPLES LIKE
ATROZINE, THE APPLICATION OF
CHESAPEAKE BAY REQUIREMENTS ON
THE -- ON CHESAPEAKE BAY
APPLICABLE TO THE REST OF THE
COUNTRY AS OTHER EXAMPLES.
BUT I HOPE THAT WE WILL TAKE A
LOOK AT THIS McCONNELL
AMENDMENT THAT SPOKE ABOUT
CARBON DIOXIDE, PLUS THE
EXAMPLES THAT I GAVE OF THE HARM
THAT E.P.A. REGULATIONS ARE
GOING TO BE DOING TO JUST FAMILY
FARMING AND STOP TO THINK ABOUT
WE'VE GOT TO FIND WAYS TO STOP
E.P.A. FROM DOING THINGS THAT
JUST DON'T MAKE COMMON SENSE.
AND I THINK A START WOULD BE TO
VOTE FOR THE McCONNELL
AMENDMENT.
AND I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR IT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR AND I SUGGEST
THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
CALL:
VSH
QUORUM CALL: