Stakeout With Senators Mitch McConnell And Judd Gregg Following the Senate Policy Committee Luncheon Also Participating: Senator Mike Johanns; Senator John Thune

Press Conference

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, good afternoon, everyone. We're at the beginning of budget week. As we've been discussing the last three weeks, this budget spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much.

I think it's beginning to break through to the American people. I think increasingly they're stunned by the amount of debt we're rolling up. If we follow the president's plan over the next 10 years, we'll double the national debt in five years, triple it in 10 years, accumulate more debt than in -- throughout the history of our country, from George Washington down through George W. Bush. This is clearly the wrong direction for America.

With that, I'd like to turn to Senator Gregg, our leader on the budget committee, and then Senator Johanns and Senator Thune are going to talk about a couple of amendments that they are -- that they have that we'll be voting on here early in the process.

SEN. GREGG: Thank you, Mr. Leader. Well, I think, as the debate has shown in fairly stark terms, this is a budget that will lead to a very significant problem for our nation in the ability to pay the debts that it's going to run up. We'll pass on to our children a nation which (it ?) cannot afford, and we'll put them in a position where just paying the federal -- the interest on the federal debt will exceed the usual business of government, such as paying for our national defense or education or health care.

And so it's a budget which has a philosophy behind it which is that you can move the government radically to the left, dramatically to the left, and not have to pay for that in any way other than pass those bills on to our children in the way of higher debt.

And that debt has an effect. It has an effect on the ability of our country to be competitive, on the value of the dollar and on the ability of us to finance that debt by getting people to lend us money.

So there are a number of amendments which we're going to talk about here. And Senator Thune and Senator Johanns are going to talk about their amendments.

Let me simply mention the amendment that we're going to be voting on that's -- that I've offered, which simply says this: A budget should -- will be subject to a point of order. That doesn't mean it can't pass; just going to take 60 votes to pass. A budget will be subject to a point of order if it increases the debt of the United States more in five years than all the presidents of the United States since 1789 have increased the debts through 2009. So if you bring a budget to the floor which says you're going to increase the debt on America's future and on our children by more than has been added to the debt over the last 230-some-odd years that we've been a republic, then you ought to get 60 votes for it. Seems like a fairly reasonable approach to us.

This budget, of course, fails that test, fails it miserably, because it not only doubles the debt in five years, it triples it in 10 years. And therefore we think we should have this type of point of order in place.

Thank you.

SEN. THUNE: Mike Johanns and I have a couple of amendments that get at the second reason why we think this is a bad budget. Judd talked about the spending and the borrowing. It also taxes too much.

And we want to make sure that the reserve fund that's created in the budget doesn't include legislation when it comes out of conference with the House -- any reconciliation instructions that would raise electricity rates or gasoline prices on American consumers. And so my amendment addresses the issue of preventing any kind of climate change legislation that might occur as a result of this budget from increasing electricity rates or gasoline prices on consumers.

And Mike Johanns will talk about his amendment, but we don't think the budget process ought to be used for this purpose in the first place, and it certainly shouldn't be used to raise taxes on American consumers at a time when the economy is already struggling and consumers across this country are already having to tighten their belts.

SEN. JOHANNS: My amendment, which was offered yesterday, really gets to a very, very important Senate process. In fact, I think it's one of the most important votes we will take on Senate process as we go through this budget.

Basically, it says this. It says, do not use the reconciliation process to pass major legislation, in this case climate change legislation. The reason for that is very, very apparent. This is important, significant, very, very costly legislation.

Climate change legislation is really about tax policy.

If you have a light switch in your home and you hit that light switch, you will be impacted by climate change legislation. In fact, we estimate that the average family will pay about $3,000 a year more as a result of climate change legislation. In my state, the state of Nebraska, farmers will pay about $40 to $80 an acre more to produce an acre of corn. Why? Because fertilizer costs go up as a result of this legislation.

Why is this amendment important? The amendment is important because literally, on the House side, almost as if it is a direction to the Senate, if you can imagine that, they have reconciliation instructions, like they're trying to tell the United States Senate what we're supposed to end up with in this process. If it were to come through -- climate change legislation were to come through as a part of the reconciliation process, it only takes a majority vote, and we simply bypass the normal Senate procedure and process.

Let's have a fair debate on this. That's what my amendment says. Let's take it to the floor of the United States Senate. Let's take this climate change and this massive tax increase to the floor of the Senate, where we can offer amendments, where we can debate it, and yes, if it's necessary, work to get the 60 votes to get that legislation passed or to oppose it.

Now, I'll just wrap up with this thought. We laid very important groundwork for this amendment. A couple weeks ago, Senator Byrd and myself circulated a letter to our colleagues. We had over 30 colleagues -- Senate colleagues sign this. It was very, very bipartisan. And we basically said the same thing: Do not use reconciliation process to pass very, very important climate change legislation. That's what brings us to where this amendment is at today.

Thank you.

SEN. MCCONNELL: Okay. We'll take a couple of questions if there are any.

Q Senator Gregg, does your amendment in legislative language actually say what you just said? Does it say point of order if you raise the budget more than any other president? Is that actually in your amendment?

SEN. GREGG: Yes. what it says -- I call it the 1789 amendment. It says that if you increase the debt by more than all the debt that's been increased since our government began through 2009, then there's a point of order against the budget, and it takes 60 votes to pass it.

SEN. MCCONNELL: Someone else?

Q (Off mike.)

SEN. MCCONNELL: Do you have any thoughts on the new conditions that the administration has put forward on the auto industry, on GM and Chrysler?

SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, Senate Republicans, almost all of us, said back in December that the automobile industry should not be given additional dollars until it engaged in the kind of restructuring that gives it a chance to survive. And we predicted that they would be back for more money in the very near future. They came back for more money. They got more money. And finally, there is an ultimatum issued, probably attached to even more money.

Our point is we're ending up exactly where Senate Republicans predicted we'd end up back in December. Had we acted then and not now, we may have saved $25 billion.

It's pretty clear that we all want to save the automobile industry. The question is how to do it. And some kind of structured reorganization sooner rather than later is clearly the only way to get that done.

Q Mr. Thune, does your amendment allow for the possibility of -- (off mike)?

SEN. THUNE: Of which?

Q You say you don't want to have anything on climate change -- (off mike) -- reconciliation.

SEN. THUNE: Correct.

Q Barbara Boxer is sort of suggesting you could have dividend -- (off mike). Are you against such dividend rebates -- (off mike)?

SEN. THUNE: Well, we -- I just don't think that -- her side-by- side is designed to give Democrats something to be for in this. But if you look at what her bill does, Senate Bill 309, which she introduced a little over a year ago in the last session of Congress, it sets off about six different funds that these revenues that would come in from cap and trade would go into.

I don't -- we don't believe for a minute that any of those -- maybe some are -- the 400 (dollar) and $800 tax rebates are going to go back to consumers, but for the most part they aren't going to use those funds to put back in the hands of consumers. Those are going to go to fund all these different things they want to do, one of which, I might add, if Harry Reid's comments are any indication, could be health care reform.

Mine's very straightforward. It just says electricity rates and gasoline prices -- we shouldn't be raising taxes on energy, creating a national energy tax, through the budget process. Hers tries to mess with it in a way that gives them some cover, but frankly we don't think does anything but -- if enacted -- if her legislation is ever enacted, funds all these other things that are included in her legislation.

SEN. MCCONNELL: Okay, anybody else?

Thanks a lot.

Q Thank you.

Source